Downard v. Rumpke of Ohio, Inc.
2013 Ohio 4760 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An integral component of a physical barrier, such as an interlock switch that prevents a machine's operation when the barrier is removed, constitutes an "equipment safety guard" under R.C. 2745.01(C). An employer cannot rebut the resulting statutory presumption of intent to injure as a matter of law when its rebuttal evidence relies exclusively on the testimony of its own employee, as this creates a question of credibility for the jury.
Facts:
- Scott D. Johnson worked as a temporary employee at a Rumpke of Ohio, Inc. (Rumpke) tire shredding facility.
- Rumpke deliberately removed, bypassed, or modified several safety features on the tire shredder, including a hinged hood and its associated interlock switch, an observation platform, and a jib crane.
- On April 26, 2007, the tire shredder's overload beacon illuminated, indicating a jam.
- The foreman, Craig Stidham, threw the electrical disconnect switch to turn off the machine.
- Johnson had climbed onto the machine to investigate the jam.
- While Stidham was momentarily distracted, Johnson became entangled within the tire shredder's feeder gears and cutting knives.
- Johnson, while conscious, stated he had fallen into the machine while trying to unjam a tire.
- After 52 days in the hospital, Johnson died from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Racheal Downard, as administratrix of Scott Johnson's estate, filed an employer intentional tort lawsuit against Rumpke of Ohio, Inc. in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted Rumpke's motion for a directed verdict in part, ruling that the jib crane, observation platform, and interlock switch were not "equipment safety guards."
- At the close of all evidence, the trial court granted another directed verdict for Rumpke, finding that Rumpke had rebutted the statutory presumption of intent to injure as a matter of law.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rumpke on the remaining issues.
- Downard (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the trial court's directed verdict rulings to the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an interlock switch that works in conjunction with a physical shield constitute an "equipment safety guard" under Ohio's Employer Intentional Tort statute, and can an employer rebut the resulting presumption of intent to injure as a matter of law based solely on its foreman's testimony that the removal was for productivity reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - S. Powell, J.
Yes, an interlock switch that is integral to a physical guard is itself an "equipment safety guard," and No, an employer cannot rebut the presumption of intent to injure as a matter of law when its only evidence is the testimony of its employee, because this raises a question of credibility for the jury. An "equipment safety guard" is a device designed to shield an operator from a dangerous aspect of the equipment. While a jib crane and observation platform are merely generic safety devices, an interlock switch that prevents the machine from operating when a physical shield (the hinged hood) is removed is an integral part of that shield. Bypassing the switch is part of the deliberate removal of the guard, triggering the rebuttable presumption of intent to injure under R.C. 2745.01(C). While this presumption can be rebutted as a matter of law with hard, uncontroverted evidence, it cannot be rebutted solely by the testimony of a company foreman claiming the removal was for productivity and not intended to cause harm. Such testimony places the witness's credibility at issue, which is a question of fact that must be decided by the jury, not the judge. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on these issues.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between general "safety devices" and true "equipment safety guards" under Ohio's intentional tort statute, expanding the definition of a guard to include integral electronic components like interlock switches. Critically, the holding limits an employer's ability to dispose of such cases before a jury trial. By ruling that an employee's testimony about the employer's motive is a question of credibility for the jury, the court makes it significantly harder for employers to rebut the statutory presumption of intent at the summary judgment or directed verdict stage, strengthening the position of injured employees in these specific types of cases.
Unlock the full brief for Downard v. Rumpke of Ohio, Inc.