Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court clarifies the standard for proving an employer’s intentional tort against an employee, requiring knowledge of a dangerous condition, knowledge that harm would be substantially certain, and requiring the employee to continue performing the dangerous task. The court explains that deliberate removal of a safety guard may be considered with other evidence on summary judgment, but the statutory rebuttable presumption could not be applied retrospectively. Finding that reasonable minds could differ regarding Jeno’s conduct, the court reversed summary judgment and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What facts are sufficient to establish an employer's intent for purposes of an Ohio common-law intentional-tort claim against an employee?
- Whether evidence that an employer deliberately removed a safety guard may be considered on summary judgment as part of the evidentiary record rather than treated as a conclusive or rebuttable presumption of intent.
- Whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning Jeno's alleged intentional tort.
Holdings
- To establish intent for an intentional tort committed by an employer against an employee, the plaintiff must show: (1) the employer knew of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality, or condition; (2) the employer knew that subjecting the employee to it would make harm to the employee a substantial certainty; and (3) the employer nevertheless required the employee to perform the dangerous task.
- Mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk, without knowledge that injury is certain or substantially certain to result, is not intent for purposes of an employer intentional-tort claim.
- When the facts show that an employer deliberately removed a safety guard from equipment employees were required to operate, the trial court may consider that evidence, together with all other evidence for and against summary judgment, in deciding whether the common-law intentional-tort claim presents a genuine issue of fact.
- The evidence, construed most strongly in Fyffe's favor, allowed reasonable minds to differ on whether Jeno's committed an intentional tort; therefore, a genuine issue of material fact existed and summary judgment was improper.
Key quotations
“However, the mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk — something short of substantial certainty — is not intent.” (118)
“Accordingly, we hold that where the facts in a given case show that the employer has deliberately removed a safety guard from equipment which employees are required to operate, trial courts may in their determination of motions for summary judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 56, and in the application of our common-law pronouncements of what may constitute an “intentional tort,” consider this evidence, along with the other evidence in support of, and contra to, such motion for summary judgment.” (119)
Factual background
Fyffe, a sanitation worker at Jeno's, was injured while cleaning a conveyor that was running. Because the sanitation crew was short-handed, Fyffe was assigned to clean equipment outside his regular duties and was pressured to work faster. The conveyor's Plexiglas safety guard had been removed, and evidence indicated that employees commonly cleaned and retrieved objects from running conveyors, that supervisors demonstrated or sanctioned the practice, and that the guards were routinely removed to facilitate cleaning.
Procedural history
Fyffe was injured while cleaning an employer-built conveyor while it was operating and while its Plexiglas safety guard had been removed. The lower court granted Jeno's summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, concluding that the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Jeno's committed an intentional tort.
Remand instructions
Remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the intentional-tort claim under the clarified standard.