Thompson v. Oberlander's Tree & Landscape Ltd.
62 N.E.3d 630
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 6, 2011 Bret Thompson injured his left hand using a Stihl 066 chainsaw supplied by his employer, Oberlander’s Tree & Landscape Ltd.; the chainsaw lacked the front hand guard that triggers the chain brake on kickback.
- Thompson sued the employer for an intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01 (claiming deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard); the employer moved for summary judgment.
- Thompson presented testimony and affidavits that (1) the hand guard was manufacturer‑provided and required by state and federal regulations, (2) he and other employees reported the missing/broken guard to management, and (3) management nevertheless directed employees to keep using company saws.
- Employer submitted affidavits from company principals denying any intent to injure.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the employer; the court of appeals reversed as to the employer and remanded, holding Thompson raised a genuine issue under R.C. 2745.01(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer’s deliberate decision not to repair/replace a manufacturer‑ or law‑required safety guard constitutes a “deliberate removal” under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Thompson: failing to repair/replace a required, manufacturer‑provided guard is a deliberate removal that creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure | Employer: mere knowledge of a hazardous condition or omission is insufficient; plaintiff must prove the employer specifically intended to injure | Held: Yes — deliberate decision not to repair/replace a manufacturer‑ or law/regs‑required guard can constitute deliberate removal under (C) and give rise to the presumption of intent |
| Whether R.C. 2745.01(C) itself requires proof of specific intent to injure to trigger the presumption | Thompson: (C) creates a rebuttable presumption of intent without the higher (A) specific‑intent showing | Employer: (C) should be read to require the same specific‑intent showing as (A) (relying on Houdek) | Held: No — (C) creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure when its predicate facts are proved; it is not nullified by requiring proof of specific intent first |
| Whether the record supported application of the (C) presumption here | Thompson: saw manual, OSHA and Ohio regs require the guard; witnesses reported the missing guard; saw was sent for other repairs without a guard returned — supports deliberate non‑repair/replacement | Employer: affidavits deny intent; omission is at most negligence/recklessness | Held: Thompson produced sufficient evidence to invoke the (C) presumption; the employer’s self‑denying affidavits were insufficient to rebut it at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199 (2012) (defines “equipment safety guard” and explains “deliberate removal” may include bypassing, disabling, or otherwise eliminating a guard)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (2012) (interprets R.C. 2745.01 and limits recovery under (A) to employer acts with specific intent to injure)
- Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc., 143 Ohio St.3d 197 (2015) (clarifies that (C)’s predicate facts give rise to a prima facie finding of intent to injure)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010) (statutory construction of R.C. 2745.01 and legislative intent)
- Rudisill v. Ford Motor Co., 709 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2013) (noting that defendant’s self‑serving denial is generally insufficient alone to rebut an evidentiary presumption)