Broyles v. Kasper Machine Co.
2012 WL 1085577, 865 F. Supp. 2d 887, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44508 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is not liable for product liability claims when a user, with full knowledge of the dangers, consciously bypasses safety features and ignores explicit warnings, as the user's actions constitute the superseding proximate cause of their injuries. An employer is not liable for an intentional tort unless it acted with the deliberate intent to injure an employee or knew injury was substantially certain to occur.
Facts:
- Richard Broyles was a supervisor at an IAC Sidney manufacturing plant, responsible for a production machine with a large rotating carousel manufactured by IMS Deltamatic.
- The machine, Bay 26, was equipped with multiple safety features, including a wire fence with interlocking doors, a light curtain that would stop the machine if breached, an alarm, and prominent warning signs stating "NO EMPLOYEES BEYOND THIS POINT" and "Do Not Climb On Carousel While Machine is Running."
- As a supervisor, Broyles was responsible for enforcing safety procedures and knew the area around the carousel was dangerous, having previously warned other employees to stay out.
- On February 19, 2008, the machine was malfunctioning. After calling the maintenance department, Broyles decided to investigate the problem himself before they arrived.
- Without shutting down the machine, Broyles deliberately bypassed the safety features by squeezing between the fence and the carousel to enter the restricted operational area.
- While inside, Broyles watched the machine operate for approximately five minutes before climbing onto the moving carousel to adjust a part, without informing the operators or telling them to stop production.
- When the carousel rotated as part of its normal cycle, Broyles lost his balance, fell, and suffered a severe spinal injury that resulted in paralysis.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Richard Broyles filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Shelby County, Ohio.
- The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting an intentional tort claim against his employer, IAC Sidney, and product liability claims against the manufacturer, IMS Deltamatic Group.
- Defendant IAC Sidney filed a motion for summary judgment on the intentional tort claim.
- Defendant IMS Deltamatic Group filed a motion for summary judgment on the product liability claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a manufacturer liable for defective design or failure to warn, and is an employer liable for an intentional tort, when a supervisor is injured after he knowingly disregarded explicit warnings and intentionally circumvented multiple safety features on a machine he knew was dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Thomas M. Rose
No. A manufacturer is not liable when a user's conscious decision to bypass safety features and ignore clear warnings is the proximate cause of the injury, and an employer is not liable for an intentional tort without evidence of a deliberate intent to injure. With respect to the employer, IAC Sidney, the plaintiff failed to show that it acted with deliberate intent to injure him or that injury was substantially certain to occur. Broyles was not operating under a specific directive from his employer to bypass safety guards; his actions were his own. Regarding the manufacturer, IMS Deltamatic, the failure to warn claim fails because adequate warnings were provided through signs and a safety manual, and the danger of climbing on a running machine was open and obvious. The defective design claim fails due to a lack of proximate cause. Broyles was fully aware of the danger, had the authority and knowledge to shut the machine down, and purposefully chose not to. His intentional circumvention of multiple safety features was the superseding cause of his injury, breaking the causal chain between any alleged design defect and the harm. No machine can be designed to guard against a person who is aware of its dangers but determined to bypass its safety features.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard for an employee to succeed on an intentional tort claim against an employer in Ohio, requiring proof of deliberate intent rather than mere negligence or knowledge of a hazard. It also significantly underscores the doctrine of proximate cause as a defense in product liability actions. The court's reasoning establishes that even if a product could theoretically be designed more safely, a manufacturer's liability is cut off when an experienced user's own conscious, reckless, and unforeseeable misuse of the product is the direct and superseding cause of the injury. This holding protects manufacturers from liability in situations where users intentionally defeat safety mechanisms designed to protect them.
Unlock the full brief for Broyles v. Kasper Machine Co.