Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.
981 N.E.2d 795, 2012 Ohio 5317, 134 Ohio St.3d 199 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio R.C. 2745.01(C), an 'equipment safety guard' is a device designed to shield an operator from a dangerous aspect of the equipment itself, and does not include personal protective equipment. An employer's failure to require an employee to use personal protective equipment does not constitute the 'deliberate removal' of a guard necessary to create a rebuttable presumption of an intentional tort.
Facts:
- Larry Hewitt was an apprentice lineman for L.E. Myers Company, an electrical-utility construction contractor.
- On June 14, 2006, Hewitt was assigned to replace electrical power lines and was required to work by himself in an elevated bucket.
- L.E. Myers's company policy required the use of protective rubber gloves and sleeves for the task.
- Hewitt claimed that a lineman on the job, Dennis Law, told him he would not need the protective gear because the power line was de-energized.
- Protective gloves were available to Hewitt, but he chose not to wear them.
- While working, Hewitt's hand came into contact with an energized power line.
- As a result of the contact, Hewitt received an electric shock that caused severe burns.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Hewitt filed an intentional tort action against his employer, L.E. Myers Company, in a state trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case at trial, the trial court granted in part L.E. Myers's motion for a directed verdict, limiting Hewitt's theory of recovery to the rebuttable presumption under R.C. 2745.01(C).
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hewitt.
- The trial court denied L.E. Myers's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- L.E. Myers, as appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the gloves were 'equipment safety guards' and that failing to require their use was a 'deliberate removal.'
- The Supreme Court of Ohio then accepted L.E. Myers's discretionary appeal.
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 personal protective equipment, such as rubber gloves and sleeves, qualify as an 'equipment safety guard' under Ohio R.C. 2745.01(C) such that an employer's failure to require its use constitutes 'deliberate removal,' thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure?
Opinions:
Majority - Lundberg Stratton, J.
No. Personal protective items like rubber gloves and sleeves do not constitute an 'equipment safety guard' under Ohio R.C. 2745.01(C), and an employer's failure to require their use does not constitute 'deliberate removal.' The court holds that an 'equipment safety guard' must be a device designed to shield the operator from a dangerous aspect of the equipment itself. This definition excludes personal protective equipment, which is controlled by the employee. The court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the plain language of the statute and the General Assembly's intent to restrict employer intentional tort liability to cases of specific intent. Furthermore, 'deliberate removal' is defined as an affirmative act of physically taking a guard away from a machine, not an omission such as failing to enforce a safety policy. Because the gloves were not an equipment safety guard, Hewitt failed to establish the rebuttable presumption of intent, and L.E. Myers was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Pfeifer, J.
Yes. The protective gear should be considered an 'equipment safety guard,' and the employer's actions amounted to 'deliberate removal.' The majority improperly reads words into the statute by requiring the guard to be attached to equipment. The phrase 'equipment safety guard' should be interpreted as a unitary term meaning 'equipment that is used as a safety guard,' which would include gloves, helmets, and kill switches. The majority’s narrow definition creates a dangerous precedent that reduces employer incentives for safety. Furthermore, the case should be remanded because the jury may have found for Hewitt on other grounds besides the statutory presumption, such as the 'substantially certain' injury standard, which the majority failed to consider.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the rebuttable presumption for employer intentional torts under Ohio R.C. 2745.01(C). By creating a clear distinction between safety devices integrated with equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE), the court has made it more difficult for employees to bring intentional tort claims based on an employer's failure to enforce safety protocols involving PPE. The ruling reinforces a high bar for such claims, pushing most workplace injuries exclusively into the workers' compensation system and limiting employer liability to affirmative acts of removing machine-specific guards. This precedent solidifies the legislature's intent to restrict employer intentional torts to situations involving specific, deliberate actions rather than general negligence or safety oversights.
Unlock the full brief for Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.