 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keller v. Northwest Conduit Corporation9/26/2000
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Larry Keller Jr., plaintiff-appellant, appeals a decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Northwest Conduit Corporation, defendant-appellee. We reverse and remand.
On August 21, 1996, appellant and co-worker, Robert Miller, were injured when they were struck by a jolt of electricity while working inside a metal enclosed electrical transformer. Appellant and Miller were employees of appellee, and were within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident. Their foreman at the time of the accident was Raymond Stickdorn. Appellant explained in a deposition that he and Miller were trying to install two pipes through the base of a transformer in order to allow underground wires to be connected to the transformer. To accomplish this, they needed to remove two existing pipes inside the transformer by using a jackhammer.
The transformer box was approximately five feet tall, six to seven feet wide, and two to three feet deep. The transformer box had two compartments with a barrier that separated the two compartments. In order to allow appellant and Miller to work inside the transformer box, a bolt for the transformer's doors had to be cut off with a bolt cutter. Appellant and Miller were told to "jackhammer the two pipes in there out to bring our two pipes up." Appellant held and positioned the bottom of the jackhammer while Miller did the actual "jackhammering." Because of the small amount of space in which they had to work, appellant stood outside the box while Miller stood with one foot on the floor of the transformer and with one foot outside the box. Approximately a minute or two after they had finished using the jackhammer and while they were getting ready to take the jackhammer out of the transformer box, an explosion occurred. Appellant testified that he had not touched anything inside the box.
On August 12, 1998, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging that the actions of appellee "constitute an act committed by an employer in which the employer intentionally injures or causes injury to an employee." On May 19, 1999, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellee argued that Stickdorn "had no intention to hurt them, or reason to believe that an accident was substantially certain to occur. The arcing of the electricity through the concrete dust was both unfortunate and unanticipated." (Emphasis sic.)
On October 5, 1999, the court sustained appellee's motion for summary judgment. The court stated in its opinion: " hen considering the surrounding circumstances and the evidence in light most favorable to [appellant], the Court finds that a reasonable jury could not conclude that [appellee] had actual knowledge that harm was substantially certain to result." Appellant appeals this decision and presents the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WHERE THE RECORD REVEALED GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT ON THE ELEMENTS OF INTENTIONAL TORT.
Appellant argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred when it granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant contends that sufficient evidence was presented to show that appellee, through Stickdorn, had actual knowledge that the proximity of the jackhammer to the energized components of the transformer had the substantial certainty of electrocution.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when: (1) there is no genuine issue of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|