McAllister v. Myers Industries
2019-Ohio-773 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's complaint for an employer intentional tort sufficiently states a claim to survive a motion to dismiss if it alleges facts with particularity that, taken as true, create a reasonable inference that the employer deliberately removed or bypassed an equipment safety guard, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure under R.C. 2745.01(C).
Facts:
- Brian J. McAllister was an employee of Myers Industries, Inc., operating an injection molding machine.
- Approximately two months before McAllister's injury, Myers Industries was informed by a contractor, Bill Hartwick, that a part on the machine was worn out and needed replacement.
- To avoid shutting down production, Myers Industries instructed Hartwick to install a 'temporary circuit' to keep the machine running until the replacement part arrived.
- This new wiring deliberately bypassed and effectively removed an interlocked safety guard on the machine's rear sliding safety gate.
- The machine's manufacturer manual specifically warned Myers Industries that safety interlocks should never be defeated.
- On April 3, 2014, McAllister was working on the machine when a co-worker opened the rear sliding safety gate.
- Because the safety guard was bypassed, an ejector plate inside the machine moved unexpectedly, crushing McAllister's left hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian J. McAllister filed an employer intentional tort claim against Myers Industries, Inc., and a negligence claim against Bill Hartwick and Filter Specialties Co. in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- Myers Industries filed a motion to dismiss the intentional tort claim for failure to state a claim under Ohio's heightened pleading standard.
- The trial court granted Myers Industries' motion to dismiss, finding the allegations did not meet the required standard.
- The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of Hartwick and Filter Specialties Co. on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed the remaining claims.
- McAllister (Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgments to the Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals of Ohio, with Myers Industries, Hartwick, and Filter Specialties as 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 employee's complaint for an employer intentional tort state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it alleges with particularity that the employer directed a third party to rewire a machine in a way that deliberately bypassed an interlocked safety guard, which subsequently caused the employee's injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Carr, Judge
Yes. An employee's complaint for an employer intentional tort is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges specific facts supporting the deliberate removal of a safety guard. The heightened pleading standard for such claims does not require the plaintiff to prove his case in the complaint, but rather to allege facts with particularity. Here, McAllister's complaint specifically identified the 'interlocked safety guard on the rear sliding safety gate,' explained that Myers Industries made a 'conscious and deliberate decision' to have it bypassed via a wiring change to keep the machine running, and asserted that this action caused his injury. These allegations, when presumed true, are sufficient to create a reasonable inference that Myers Industries deliberately removed a safety guard as contemplated by R.C. 2745.01(C), thus entitling McAllister to the rebuttable presumption of an 'intent to injure' and allowing the claim to proceed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Ohio's heightened pleading standard for employer intentional tort claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It reaffirms that while a plaintiff must plead specific facts rather than conclusory allegations, they are not required to prove the technical elements of their case within the complaint itself. The ruling prevents premature dismissal of plausible claims where an employer is alleged to have consciously disabled a safety mechanism, ensuring that such cases can proceed to discovery. It distinguishes between the requirements at the pleading stage versus the summary judgment stage, protecting an employee's ability to hold an employer accountable for deliberately creating a hazardous workplace.
