Turner v. Dimex, L.L.C.
147 N.E.3d 35
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Tim Turner, a Dimex shipping clerk, was seriously injured on Dec. 14, 2015 when he was pinned between two forklifts on Dimex’s loading dock.
- Turner sued Dimex under R.C. 2745.01 alleging the employer deliberately removed an "equipment safety guard" (the forklift backup alarm), triggering a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure.
- Dimex asserted workers' compensation immunity and moved for summary judgment; Turner also moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dimex’s motion and denied Turner’s.
- Key factual points: Forklift 21’s backup alarm intermittently failed on multiple pre-shift checklists before the accident; operators reported the problem but the forklift remained in service; Dimex policy did not treat a failed backup alarm as an automatic out-of-service condition.
- The court considered whether a backup alarm qualifies as an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C) and whether Dimex deliberately removed or disabled any guard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forklift backup alarm is an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C) | Turner: the nonfunctioning backup alarm is a safety device and thus an "equipment safety guard," entitling him to the statutory presumption of deliberate intent | Dimex: the alarm merely warns; it does not shield anyone from exposure to a dangerous aspect of the equipment and so is not an "equipment safety guard" | Court: backup alarm is not an "equipment safety guard" because it only alerts/warns and does not shield or physically protect operators or bystanders |
| Whether Dimex deliberately removed or otherwise disabled the alleged guard (triggering the rebuttable presumption) | Turner: Dimex knew the alarm was inoperative on multiple days and deliberately left the forklift in service | Dimex: knowledge of a malfunction alone is insufficient; no evidence Dimex deliberately removed, disabled, or bypassed the alarm or intended to injure | Court: no evidence of deliberate removal or intent; mere knowledge of a hazardous condition is insufficient to prove deliberate intent |
| Whether the statutory protection in R.C. 2745.01(C) is limited to equipment "operators" (standing to invoke the presumption) | Turner: statute should protect non-operators injured by malfunctioning safety devices; he also argued he functioned as an operator on the dock | Dimex: interpretation of the statute and controlling precedent favors limiting the guard concept to devices that shield operators; issue unnecessary here | Court: did not resolve the operator/non-operator split (deeming it moot); outcome based on ruling that the alarm is not a guard and no deliberate removal occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108 (1991) (established common-law "substantial certainty" test for employer intentional torts)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 927 N.E.2d 1066 (2010) (construing R.C. 2745.01; statutory standard for deliberate intent)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199, 981 N.E.2d 795 (2012) ("equipment safety guard" means a device designed to shield the operator from exposure to or injury by a dangerous aspect of the equipment)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491, 983 N.E.2d 1253 (2012) (mere employer knowledge of a hazard is insufficient; absent deliberate removal, plaintiff must prove specific intent to injure)
- Beyer v. Rieter Automotive N. Am., 134 Ohio St.3d 379, 982 N.E.2d 708 (2012) (reaffirming narrow definition of "equipment safety guard")
- Beary v. Larry Murphy Dump Truck Serv., Inc., 20 N.E.3d 359 (5th Dist. 2014) (applied Hewitt to hold a backup alarm is not an "equipment safety guard")