2013 Ohio 5647
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wright, a maintenance technician at Mar-Bal, lost his right hand cleaning an injection-molding machine on July 15, 2009.
- Mar-Bal had written lockout/tagout procedures, trained employees, and Wright signed an acknowledgement to follow those procedures.
- Proper clean-out procedure required taking the machine to manual, moving the cylinder rearward, and locking out/tagging out at the electrical panel; the process took 1–5 minutes.
- Wright instead signaled the operator, climbed onto the machine while it was energized, pulled material from the housing, the machine cycled, and his hand was caught.
- Wright sued under R.C. 2745.01 for an employer intentional tort, alleging Mar-Bal deliberately required technicians to ignore lockout/tagout to speed production; the trial court granted Mar-Bal summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mar-Bal committed an intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01 | Mar-Bal deliberately required technicians to perform energized clean-outs to speed production, showing deliberate intent to injure or substantial certainty of injury | Mar-Bal had written procedures, training, and Wright admitted the injury would not have occurred if he had locked out/tagged out; no evidence of employer intent to injure | No — summary judgment for Mar-Bal; record lacks evidence of deliberate intent to injure under R.C. 2745.01(A)-(B) |
| Whether R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption (deliberate removal of guard) applies | Operator may have deliberately resumed production or removed guard, giving rise to statutory rebuttable presumption of intent | No evidence employer deliberately removed a safety guard; operator was not a manager and believed Wright signaled to proceed | No — presumption not triggered; no evidence of employer deliberately removing an equipment safety guard |
| Whether contradictory affidavits create a genuine issue of fact | Wright’s affidavit and a co-worker’s affidavit allege pressure to bypass lockout/tagout | Wright’s deposition and other statements contradicted his affidavit; Byrd controls that unexplained contradictions cannot defeat summary judgment | No — Wright’s affidavit contradicted his deposition without sufficient explanation, so it does not create a genuine issue |
| Whether failure to follow safety procedures can, standing alone, constitute deliberate intent | Wright contends systemic encouragement to skip lockout/tagout is equivalent to deliberate intent to injure | Mar-Bal argues negligence, gross negligence, or wantonness is not enough; only specific intent qualifies under statute | No — employer’s failure to follow procedures may be negligent or wanton but does not meet R.C. 2745.01’s deliberate-intent standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (sets Ohio summary judgment standards)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (defines material facts for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (federal standard on genuine issue for trial)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (R.C. 2745.01 requires specific intent to injure)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (affidavits contradicting prior deposition testimony cannot defeat summary judgment without explanation)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials, N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (R.C. 2745.01 limits employer intentional-tort claims to deliberate intent)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (common-law standards for employer intent; superseded by statute in application)
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199 (definition of deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard under R.C. 2745.01(C))