Seaton v. City of Willoughby
102 N.E.3d 1227
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Shawn Wilson, a City of Willoughby employee, died after an asphalt roller he operated rolled downhill; he apparently struck his head while jumping from the uncontrolled machine.
- Wilson's estate (Seaton) sued the City asserting survivorship and wrongful-death claims; the City asserted workers' compensation immunity under R.C. 4123.74 and moved for summary judgment.
- Seaton alleged the City deliberately disabled safety devices on the roller, specifically the parking brake (and alternatively cited the manual and a cotter-pin), invoking the employer-intentional-tort exception (R.C. 2745.01(C)).
- Evidence included City mechanic testimony acknowledging substantial modifications to the parking-brake system over time, inconsistent maintenance records, BWC investigators' findings that the parking brake was not operational post-accident, and competing expert opinions on brake functionality.
- The trial court denied the City’s summary-judgment motion, finding a genuine issue of fact whether the City deliberately disabled the parking brake (a qualifying "equipment safety guard").
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding summary judgment improper because material factual disputes remained about deliberate removal/disablement of the safety guard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer is entitled to R.C. 4123.74 workers' compensation immunity | Seaton: exception applies because the City deliberately disabled the roller's parking brake, an equipment safety guard, creating a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure | City: no evidence of a deliberate decision to remove/disable the parking brake; thus immunity applies | Denied — genuine issue of material fact existed about deliberate disablement, precluding summary judgment |
| Whether the parking brake qualifies as an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Seaton: parking brake's primary purpose is safety; it qualifies as a safety guard | City: did not contest qualification in trial court; argued lack of deliberate removal | Court accepted that the parking brake qualified as a safety guard for purposes of the presumption |
| Whether evidence established "deliberate removal" (deliberate decision to eliminate guard) | Seaton: testimony and records show City substantially modified the braking system, which experts say disabled it | City: modifications were not a deliberate decision to eliminate the guard; roller had been used without incident | Court: disputed facts about modifications and their effect create a triable issue; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Standard for summary judgment and burden shift | Seaton relied on evidentiary showing (deposition, BWC report, experts) to create genuine issue | City argued it met initial burden and Seaton failed to rebut with admissible evidence | Court applied de novo review and Civ.R. 56 standards; ruled the nonmoving party's evidence created material factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. DTJ Ents., 143 Ohio St.3d 197 (workers' compensation exclusivity and intentional-tort exception)
- Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 624 (employer intentional tort arises outside workers' compensation when employer acts with intent to injure)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199 (definition of "equipment safety guard" and what constitutes deliberate removal)
- Pixley v. Pro-Pack Indus., Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 203 (insufficient evidence of tampering with safety guard precludes R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (absent deliberate intent, employer not liable under intentional-tort exception)
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Civ.R. 56 as a litigation shortcut)