Estate of Mennett v. Stauffer Site Servs., L.L.C.
2020-Ohio-4355 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law (R.C. 2745.01), an employer is not liable for an intentional tort unless the plaintiff proves the employer acted with a deliberate intent to injure the employee, a standard not met by knowingly permitting a hazardous condition, failing to provide safety equipment, or violating OSHA regulations.
Facts:
- Stauffer Site Services, LLC ('Stauffer') employed Marcus A. Mennett to work on an excavation project.
- Mennett's job involved spreading gravel and setting sewer pipes at the bottom of an excavated trench.
- Stauffer dug a trench approximately nine and one-half feet deep without required safety equipment like trench boxes.
- Jack Stauffer, a supervisor, and Shawn Adkins, a city official, observed that the trench was unstable due to water seepage and deemed it unsafe.
- Jack Stauffer issued a stop-work order to all employees.
- Jack Stauffer and Adkins left the jobsite to get trench boxes to secure the trench walls.
- For an unknown reason, Mennett re-entered the trench after the stop-work order was issued.
- Approximately 20-30 minutes after the stop-work order, the trench collapsed, fatally injuring Mennett.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Marcus A. Mennett filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against Stauffer Site Services, LLC, Jack Stauffer, and John Stauffer in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- After discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The Estate of Marcus A. Mennett (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Twelfth Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio, where Stauffer, et al. were the appellees.
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 employer commit an intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01, which requires proof of a deliberate intent to injure, when it fails to provide adequate trench safety equipment but subsequently orders work to stop and attempts to procure safety equipment upon recognizing an imminent danger that later causes an employee's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Piper, J.
No, an employer does not commit an intentional tort under these circumstances. To establish an employer intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01, a plaintiff must prove the employer acted with a 'deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury,' a standard far higher than negligence, recklessness, or even knowingly permitting a hazardous condition to exist. The court reasoned that while Stauffer created a dangerous condition and violated OSHA regulations, its subsequent actions directly contradicted any intent to injure. The uncontroverted evidence showed that upon recognizing the danger, Jack Stauffer ordered all work to stop and immediately took steps to remedy the hazard by seeking trench boxes. This demonstrated a 'conscious regard for employee safety,' not a deliberate intent to injure. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Mennett was ordered or required to re-enter the trench; in fact, his specific work tasks could not have been performed at that time. The court also found the common-law claim against co-employees failed because there was no evidence that any co-employee required Mennett to continue performing the dangerous task after the stop-work order was issued.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable statutory barrier in Ohio for employees seeking to sue their employers for intentional torts, distinguishing it sharply from claims of negligence or recklessness. It clarifies that an employer's remedial actions, such as a stop-work order upon recognizing a hazard, can effectively defeat a claim of 'deliberate intent to injure,' even if the employer was initially responsible for creating the dangerous condition. The case solidifies the principle that violations of safety regulations like OSHA, on their own, are insufficient to prove the specific intent required by R.C. 2745.01. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for plaintiffs to bypass the workers' compensation system, requiring them to produce evidence of an employer's conscious and deliberate objective to cause harm, rather than merely an awareness of a high risk of harm.
