 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vermett v. Fred Christen & Sons Co.8/25/2000
ed his hand within the die area, he would not have been injured. Additionally, it is undisputed that the warnings were displayed on the front of the press, directly in front of the operator, at eye-level. Ryan testified that he noticed the warning label every time he operated the press.
With respect to the point of operation warning, appellants assert that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the adequacy of the warning because it is unclear whether the warning meant anything to appellant. Additionally, according to appellants, the warning was inadequate because it "meant nothing" to even Ryan, who had greater experience on the press. We disagree.
Wysong clearly knew the risk associated with a lack of point of operation guarding, and warned against it. Ryan, Knak, and Brickner all testified that they knew of this warning. Knak and Brickner simply never discussed the implementation of point of operation guarding. Had FC&S;instituted adequate point of operation safeguarding, as instructed on the warning label and in the safety manual, appellant's injury would not have occurred. Accordingly, we find that the warnings were adequate.
Based on the foregoing, we find that appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the press was defective in design, formulation, or with respect to its warnings. Because we find that summary judgment was properly granted in Wysong's favor, we additionally find that the trial court properly denied appellants' motion for reconsideration. Appellants' second and fifth assignments of error are found not well-taken.
C. APPELLANT'S CLAIMS AGAINST LINEMASTER
Appellants also claimed that Linemaster's foot pedal was defective. The trial court denied Linemaster's motion for summary judgment regarding appellants' claim that the pedal was defective in design and manufacture, but granted Linemaster summary judgment regarding the adequacy of Linemaster's warnings.
A product is defective due to inadequate time-of-marketing or post-marketing warning if the manufacturer knew or should have known of a risk associated with the product, but failed to provide adequate warning or instruction given the likelihood that the product would cause harm of the type for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages and in light of the likely seriousness of that harm. R.C. 2707.76. A component manufacturer has the obligation to warn of the dangers associated with a known specific use of the component. Phan, 100 Ohio App.3d 198, 200. As stated above, " warning is adequate if it reasonably discloses all inherent risks, and if the product is safe when used as directed." Id.
A manufacturer is negligent when it knows of a latent defect which renders a product unsafe and fails to provide a warning. Temple v. Wean United (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 325. However, it is "futile to require that [a manufacturer] notify the employee of that which the responsible party, the employer, was already aware." Id. Furthermore, in order to recover for his injuries, an employee must demonstrate that the alleged defective warning was a direct and proximate cause of his injuries. Id. at 321.
DiBonaventura testified that this model of foot pedal was manufactured with the following warning:
"WARNING
"THIS FOOT SWITCH SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE POINT OF OPERATION GUARDING DEVICES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED SO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OPERATOR'S HANDS OR FINGERS TO REMAIN WITHIN THE POINT OF OPERATION DURING THE ACTUAL MACHINE CYCLE."
Obviously, DiBonaventura could not state whether this particular pedal displayed this warning an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|