 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pettit v. Clarion Technologies8/26/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } This matter comes before the court on appeal from the Williams County Court of Common Pleas wherein the court granted summary judgment to Clarion Plastics Technologies, et al. ("Clarion"). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{ } This case results from a workplace injury sustained by appellant, Robbin Pettit. Pettit worked at Clarion's factory in 1998 and 1999 as a maintenance manager, and then from 2000 to 2002 as a maintenance technician. His job responsibilities included the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment. On April 26, 2001, Pettit learned from co-worker James Anderson that an injection molding press, known as press No. 8, was not functioning properly. In order to make the needed repair, Pettit climbed on top of the press using the machine's built-in ladder, sat on the beam upon which the robotic arm tracks, and maneuvered out on the beam to the area near the robotic arm. While seated on the end of the beam, Pettit completed the repair. After finishing the repair, Pettit fell from the beam to the concrete floor approximately 12 feet below and severely injured himself.
{ } On November 20, 2003, appellants, Robbin M. and Kelly J. Pettit, filed an intentional tort claim against Clarion. Appellants' argued that the only way to reach press No. 8 in order to repair it was to climb on to it. Thus, Clarion required Pettit to perform the repair with knowledge that it was dangerous. Clarion argued that they provided a forklift with a basket for such elevated repairs. The forklift and basket would have allowed Pettit to perform the repair safely. Clarion argued that because Pettit knew about the forklift and basket but refused to use it, they should not be held liable. On March 19, 2004, Clarion filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted on December 1, 2004. Appellants appeal that judgment setting forth the following assignment of error:
{ } "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON AN EMPLOYER INTENTIONAL TORT CLAIM WHEN MATERIAL FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE. "
{ } Civ.R. 56(C) provides that summary judgment can be granted only if (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; (2) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party; and (3) the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327. In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court must apply the same standard as the trial court. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129.
{ } Although Ohio workers' compensation law generally provides employees with the sole means of compensation for injuries suffered within the scope of employment, where an employer's conduct is sufficiently egregious, an employee may bring an action against that employer for intentional tort. Goodin v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (2000), 141 Ohio App.3d 207, 214. This exception arises from the notion that where an employer's conduct is sufficiently egregious to constitute an intentional tort, the employer's act occurs outside the scope of employment. Id., at 215.
{ } The law is well settled that in order to establish an employer intentional tort, an employee must demonstrate the following: "(1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|