Salvati v. Anthony-Lee Screen Printing, Inc.
117 N.E.3d 950
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Salvati, an independent contractor, was hired to build doors around a compressor room that housed a temperature-controlled exhaust fan used with a paint spray booth.
- At the time of the work only four of eight safety filters (fan guards) were in place; the fan periodically ran when room temperature rose.
- The room was small and poorly lit once enclosed; light from the shop came through louvres that opened when the fan ran. Salvati requested lighting and learned an electrician was hired.
- Salvati and his crew completed the enclosure without incident; a few days later Salvati entered the room on his own to inspect work, reached toward the fan to check if it was running, and seriously injured his hand.
- In discovery Salvati admitted he and his crew knew the fan was dangerous and had discussed staying away from it; he also acknowledged awareness of the room’s lack of lighting.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Anthony‑Lee; Salvati appealed asserting negligence, building‑code/OSHA violations, and that the owner should have warned or exercised control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to independent contractor | Salvati: Anthony‑Lee owed a duty to provide safe conditions and warn of hazards | Anthony‑Lee: As owner, no duty to independent contractor for open and obvious hazards | Court: No duty to warn because Salvati, a frequenter/independent contractor, knew of the unguarded fan (open and obvious) |
| Open-and-obvious danger / contributory knowledge | Salvati: Dark room concealed danger; he was unaware fan was running | Anthony‑Lee: Salvati knew about fan hazards and discussed danger with crew | Court: Evidence showed Salvati appreciated the risk; darkness did not mask the hazard he already knew about |
| Owner control exception (Hirschbach) | Salvati: Owner’s involvement or control over the work area removes independent‑contractor rule | Anthony‑Lee: Had no control over Salvati’s completed work; Salvati inspected on his own after completion | Court: Hirschbach inapplicable—no active control or direction by Anthony‑Lee over Salvati’s means/manner |
| Regulatory violations (Ohio code/OSHA) as negligence per se | Salvati: Lack of guard/lighting violated regulations, creating negligence per se | Anthony‑Lee: Regulatory breach alone doesn’t establish negligence per se against a contractor who knew the risk | Court: Regulatory violations not negligence per se; same duty analysis applies and Salvati had equal knowledge of hazard |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (general negligence elements and duty analysis)
- Davis v. Charles Shutrump & Sons Co., 140 Ohio St. 89 (owner owes no duty to independent contractor for inherently dangerous work unless owner knew of condition and contractor did not)
- Michaels v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 475 (subcontracting/construction work treated as inherently dangerous)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open and obvious doctrine bars duty to warn)
- Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 206 (owner’s active participation/control can create duty despite independent‑contractor status)
- Cafferkey v. Turner Constr. Co., 21 Ohio St.3d 110 (distinguishing mere observation/checking from active control)
- Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc., 72 Ohio St.3d 302 (violations of regulations do not automatically create negligence per se)