2022 Ohio 231
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson (administrator of Thomas Robinson's estate) sued Lafarge North America after Thomas Robinson was asphyxiated by cement powder while cleaning a Lafarge-owned railcar at The Andersons’ repair facility.
- Lafarge arranged for five railcars to be moved to The Andersons for clean-out and repairs; pre-shipment emails described the cars as “mostly empty.”
- The Andersons’ estimator (Randall Goben) inspected the cars upon arrival, found more product than initially estimated, and prepared a work order allocating 30 hours to clean the subject car; The Andersons proceeded, believing they had expertise to perform the work.
- During clean-out, hardened transfer tubes prevented vacuuming; crews opened hopper chutes and used pans and equipment to remove product; a 20-foot poker was used to dislodge powder from the top hatches.
- The poker fell into the hopper; Decedent entered the hopper chute to retrieve it without telling coworkers and was engulfed by cement powder flowing from the chute, causing fatal asphyxiation.
- Lafarge moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to Decedent; the trial court granted summary judgment and the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lafarge owed a duty of care to the decedent such that summary judgment for Lafarge was improper | Lafarge manufactured the cement, knew its condition (hardened), misrepresented cars as "mostly empty," and therefore created a foreseeable risk by delivering cars and concealing hazards | Lafarge relied on The Andersons’ inspection and expertise; emails pre-dating The Andersons’ inspection were irrelevant to Decedent/crew; Decedent’s voluntary, uncommunicated act was unforeseeable | Court held Lafarge owed no duty as a matter of law; harm from Decedent’s spontaneous entry into the hopper was unforeseeable, so summary judgment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378 (1997) (describing appellate review standard for summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (articulating the summary judgment test)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (setting moving and reciprocal burdens in summary judgment practice)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (2002) (elements of negligence and duty framed by foreseeability)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (negligence elements explained)
- Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. [sic], 45 Ohio St.3d 96 (1989) (discussing duty as relationship based on foreseeability)