Wentling v. David Motor Coach Ltd.
111 N.E.3d 610
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent Richard Wentling, an employee of David Motor Coach (Davis), was instructed to retrieve parts from a scrapped bus in Davis’s lower lot, crawled under the bus, and used a jack; the jack sank into the soil, the bus compressed his chest/head, and he died four days later.
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Wentling (administrator of the estate) sued Davis Motor Coach, its president Frank B. Bolog, Fidelity US Coach, and Mechanic Realty Ltd. (owner of the property) asserting negligence, employer intentional tort, breach of lease, nuisance, premises liability, and wrongful death.
- Defendants filed a summary judgment motion limited to negligence and employer intentional tort; they produced a certificate showing Davis had paid workers’ compensation premiums.
- Plaintiff opposed summary judgment and sought discovery sanctions for spoliation because the bus and jack were scrapped (disposed) before litigation; defendants said disposal occurred in the ordinary course about 11 months after the accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants; on appeal the court reversed as to property/negligence claims against Mechanic Realty and Bolog (they failed to meet Civ.R. 56 initial burden) but affirmed summary judgment for Davis on the employer intentional tort and denied spoliation sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mechanic Realty met its Civ.R. 56 initial burden on property claims (Counts 3–5) | Mechanic Realty did not submit evidence addressing those claims; summary judgment improper. | Summary judgment was appropriate (trial court treated property claims as covered). | Reversed as to Mechanic Realty: it failed to meet the initial Civ.R. 56 burden; summary judgment on property claims was erroneous. |
| Whether Mechanic Realty and Bolog are immune under R.C. 4123.74 because of relationship to Davis (workers’ comp immunity) | Plaintiff: MRL and Bolog were not Davis’s employer; immunity shouldn’t apply to them. | Defendants: entities are related; employer immunity should extend because Davis paid premiums. | Reversed as to negligence claims for MRL and Bolog: defendants did not argue or prove entitlement to immunity below; trial court erred. |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to spoliation sanctions (negative inference/rebuttable presumption) for disposal of bus and jack | Plaintiff: scrapping deprived ability to prove removal of safety guard; sanction/rebuttable presumption of liability warranted. | Defendants: disposal occurred ~11 months after accident in ordinary course; no notice of litigation; no willful destruction. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion denying sanctions; disposal in ordinary course before notice of litigation defeated spoliation inference. |
| Whether employer intentional-tort claim against Davis survives summary judgment under R.C. 2745.01 (deliberate intent/substantially certain standard) | Plaintiff: destruction of evidence might have supported a rebuttable presumption of deliberate removal of safety guard and therefore liability. | Defendants: no evidence Davis acted with deliberate intent to injure; workers’ compensation bars ordinary tort recovery. | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to produce evidence of deliberate intent or removal of a safety guard; summary judgment on employer intentional tort proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hounshell v. American States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (standard that summary judgment denied if reasonable minds could differ)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (prior common-law substantial-certainty employer-intent framework)
- Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 28 (recognition of tort of spoliation and its elements)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (statutory intent requirement limits employer intentional-tort recovery)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (worker’s compensation exclusivity when employer lacks deliberate intent)