Roberts v. RMB Enterprises, Inc.
197 Ohio App. 3d 435
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- RMB and BTI are Bowing-owned entities; BTI leases employees to RMB to perform intraplant hauling at AK Steel's Middletown facility.
- Guzman and Roberts were BTI employees leased to RMB at the AK Steel site.
- On March 3, 2007, Guzman and Roberts attempted to service a wheel-assembly unit after being instructed to deflate the tire; the unit exploded, killing Guzman and injuring Roberts.
- Guzman’s death and Roberts’s injuries led to workers’ compensation benefits being awarded and a civil action against RMB, BTI, DTI, DTS, AK Steel, Bryan Davis, and Bill and Don Bowling.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all appellees; Bryan Davis filed a cross-appeal. The appellate court reviews de novo and affirms the summary judgments, finding workers’ compensation immunity for RMB/BTI and no triable issues on negligence, intentional torts, product liability, and punitive damages.
- Appellants’ claims seek wrongful death, personal injury, intentional torts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, products liability, punitive damages, and supervisory/officer liability; the court addresses these across multiple assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RMB/BTI enjoy workers’ compensation immunity under R.C. 4123.74. | Roberts/ Guzman argue CHAPTER 4125 applies to professional employer organizations, defeating immunity. | RMB/BTI are not professional employer organizations; statute targets entities that specialize in leasing employees. | RMB/BTI entitled to workers’ compensation immunity; first assignment of error overruled. |
| Whether there exist genuine issues of material fact on intentional-tort claims against RMB/BTI. | Appellants claim deliberate intent to injure via removal of safety features or reckless conduct. | No evidence of deliberate intent; actions amount to recklessness at most. | No genuine issues; intentional-tort claims against RMB/BTI fail. |
| Whether Davis’s negligence can be a proximate cause of the injuries. | Davis's training/supervision failures show duty/breach/causation. | Davis told Guzman to deflate the tire; explosion caused by workers’ failure to deflate; no proximate causation by Davis. | No genuine issue of material fact; Davis not liable. |
| Whether corporate officers Bowling are individually liable for negligence. | Bowling failed to provide training/supervision, liable personally. | Record shows Davis instructed deflation; no direct participation by Bowings. | No personal liability for Bill/Don Bowling; no evidence of participation in the act. |
| Whether DTI/DTS/AK Steel product liability or premises/negligence claims survive. | Wheel-assembly design/defects caused the explosion; multiple product-liability theories. | Explosion caused by employees’ failure to deflate; no defect or proximate cause by manufacturers/suppliers. | No product-liability or premises-liability fault; summary judgments affirmed; punitive-damages claim also dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaminski v. Metal Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010-Ohio-1027) (establishes standard for employer intentional torts and specific intent)
- Klaus v. United Equity, Inc., 2010-Ohio-3549 (Ohio 2010) (presumption under deliberate removal of safety guard requires specific context)
- Fickle v. Conversion Technologies Internatl., Inc., 2011-Ohio-2960 (Ohio 2011) (definition of equipment safety guard and rebuttable presumptions)
- Beary v. Larry Murphy Dump Truck Serv., Inc., 2011-Ohio-4977 (Ohio 2011) (defines guard-related safety concepts in context of intentional torts)
- Weimerskirch v. Coakley, 2008-Ohio-1681 (Ohio 2008) (discusses standards for intent and recklessness in emotional distress claims)