2012 Ohio 321
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Romig sued Worthington Cylinder and Baker Hi-Way; Worthington cross-claimed against Baker for indemnity, defense, and contribution related to decedent’s death.
- Decedent Robert L. Romig Jr. was Baker’s employee; he died while unloading Worthington’s propane cylinders loaded on a drop-deck trailer with a potentially overhanging fourth cradle.
- Worthington loaded eight cradles on lower deck, four on upper deck; the fourth cradle overhung by about one inch, creating a potentially dangerous condition.
- Worthington’s dock manager testified a three-cradle rule existed for upper-deck loading, but Baker’s drivers were not aware of it; decedent reportedly approved placement of cradles near him.
- Baker argued immunity under Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act barred Worthington’s indemnity claims; Romig’s wrongful death claim against Baker remained, but Baker’s defense was immune as to negligence.
- The trial court granted Baker summary judgment on Worthington’s cross-claims; the court later entered a verdict for Romig against Worthington and denied Worthington’s post-trial motions; court affirmed on appeal, including dismissing the empty-chair defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the indemnity clause enforceable against Baker’s workers’ compensation immunity? | Worthington—Romig claims Baker must defend/indemnify under contract. | Baker—statutory immunity shields it from indemnity. | Indemnity clause does not defeat WC immunity; immunity applies. |
| Should the court have granted directed verdict/JNOV for Worthington based on evidence of loading defects? | Worthington argues Baker’s negligence contributed; genuine issue for trial. | Romig/Worthington—jury should determine fault; no directed verdict warranted. | No error; court properly denied directed verdict/JNOV. |
| May Worthington present evidence of Baker’s negligence as the “empty chair” defense under R.C. 2307.23? | Worthington seeks to allocate fault to Baker despite immunity. | Immunity covers negligence; empty-chair defense not applicable. | Empty-chair defense not permitted; immunity remains. |
| Did the trial court err in limiting introduction of OSHA findings about Baker’s conduct? | OSHA findings bear on negligence of loading. | Evidence limited; loading negligence remains controlled by WC framework. | No reversible error; evidence properly limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendall v. U.S. Dismantling Co., 20 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio 1985) (indemnity does not waive immunity unless explicit waiver)
- Conley v. Brown Corp. of Waverly, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 470 (Ohio 1998) (employer’s intentional tort outside WC immunity framework)
- United States v. Savage Truck Lines, Inc., 209 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1953) (carrier primary duty; latent loading defects fall to shipper)
- Spence v. ESAB Group, Inc., 63 F.3d 212 (6th Cir. 2010) (reasonable-care standard for undertakings in services)
- Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (Ohio 2011) (WC exclusive remedy; no employer negligence within WC framework)