Adams v. Aluchem, Inc., No. C-910504

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation604 N.E.2d 254,78 Ohio App.3d 261
Decision Date09 September 1992
Docket NumberNo. C-910504
PartiesADAMS et al., Appellants, v. ALUCHEM, INC., Appellee.

Clements, Mahin & Cohen, Edward Cohen, and Gwendolyn S. Barnhart, Cincinnati, for appellants.

Graydon, Head & Ritchey, Jean M. Geoppinger and Daniel E. Burke, Cincinnati, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, Aluchem Inc. ("Aluchem"), in an intentional tort action brought by the plaintiffs-appellants, James C. and Carla R. Adams. On appeal, the Adamses advance a single assignment of error in which they challenge the entry of summary judgment upon the basis that the evidence of record creates genuine issues of material fact as to whether James Adams's injury resulted from intentional conduct attributable to Aluchem. We find that this challenge is well taken and reverse.

James Adams ("Adams") was employed as a mechanic for Aluchem when he was instructed to repair a drag conveyor by installing director plates onto the system. While Adams was busy on the third floor bolting down one of the plates, another employee on the first floor activated the conveyor system's gear mechanism. Adams's left wrist got caught in the mechanism, pulling his arm into the housing and amputating it at the shoulder.

Aluchem, in its motion for summary judgment, presented the affidavit of Aluchem's vice-president of manufacturing, Ronald Bell, who stated that he conducted his company's investigation of the accident. He stated that the drag conveyor system was located on the third floor but was operated by stop and start buttons which were located on the first floor. He stated further that, attached to the conveyor on the third floor, located no further than eight feet from the location where Adams was working at the time of the accident, was a safety disconnect switch. According to Bell, the safety disconnect switch was conspicuous and clearly visible. Bell stated that Adams had been trained in the technique of locking out machinery prior to beginning maintenance work, and that Adams was aware that there was a disconnect device for every motor on equipment in the plant. Bell asserted that, had the safety disconnect switch been engaged, the accident would never have occurred. According to Bell, the safety disconnect switch was tested after the accident and found to be in working order.

Bell stated additionally that, prior to Adams's accident, Aluchem had never had an employee injured while operating or performing maintenance on the drag conveyor. He asserted that, prior to the accident, Aluchem had never been advised by any employee of potential dangers associated with the drag conveyor. Bell also stated that, approximately two days before the accident, Adams was working on another piece of machinery with other employees and was instructed to, and did, use the lock-out features while repairs were being made. Bell stated that since 1980 Aluchem had submitted to inspections of its facility by the Ohio Industrial Commission's Division of Safety and Hygiene, which had never made safety recommendations regarding the conveyor.

In an affidavit attached to his memorandum opposing summary judgment, Adams stated that it was only after the accident that he learned that there was a "main disconnect" on the third floor, having received no previous information or training from Aluchem regarding the disconnect. He stated that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Dirksing v. Blue Chip Architectural Products, Inc., CA93-08-156
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 7 de novembro de 1994
    ...not intent. * * *" The elements of an intentional tort may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Adams v. Aluchem, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 261, 264, 604 N.E.2d Page 219 254, 255-256. Appellant's evidence, if believed, shows that on the day of the accident, Dirksing was assisting Keith S......
  • Goodin v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 13 de março de 2000
    ...tort by direct or circumstantial evidence. Hannah, 82 Ohio St.3d at 485, 696 N.E.2d at 1046, citing Adams v. Aluchem, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 261, 264, 604 N.E.2d 254, B. INTENTIONAL TORT Although the workers' compensation provisions provide employees with the primary means of compensat......
  • Priscilla Goodin, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Michael S. Sheroan v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 00-LW-1180
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 13 de março de 2000
    ...tort by direct or circumstantial evidence. Hannah, 82 Ohio St.3d at 485, 696 N.E.2d at 1046 (citing Adams v. Aluchem, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 261, 264, 604 N.E.2d 254, 256). B. INTENTIONAL TORT Although the workers' compensation provisions provide employees with the primary means of com......
  • Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 97-783
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 5 de agosto de 1998
    ...of the three elements of an employer intentional tort may be made by direct or circumstantial evidence. Adams v. Aluchem, Inc. (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 261, 264, 604 N.E.2d 254, 256. With these principles in mind, we now must determine whether summary judgment was [696 N.E.2d 1047] In grantin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT