Burns v. Presrite Corp.
Decision Date | 03 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-A-1815,93-A-1815 |
Citation | 646 N.E.2d 892,97 Ohio App.3d 377 |
Parties | BURNS, Appellant, v. PRESRITE CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John E. Duda, Cleveland, for appellant.
Christopher A. Holecek, Cleveland, for appellee.
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. In this judgment, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by appellee, Presrite Corporation, on the complaint filed by appellant, Patrick D. Burns.
Appellant was employed by appellee as a trim press operator at appellee's plant in Jefferson, Ohio. On August 31, 1989, appellant injured his back as a result of a fall which occurred after appellant jumped off a platform on which he was working in an effort to escape a spray of sparks coming from an induction heater located approximately five feet away from appellant's work station on the platform. The platform stands approximately three to four feet above the factory floor.
The induction heater had sprayed sparks on three or four prior occasions since it was first purchased by appellee in 1987. In order to prevent this from happening, appellee's maintenance staff would tighten the bolts on the induction heater three times a day. Apparently, the sparks resulted from the loosening of a bolt on the outside of the induction heater, at which point the bolt would come in contact with something, causing a stream of sparks. On the prior occasions in which this sparking action occurred, the sparks had never sprayed in the direction of any employees, and no injuries had ever resulted.
On August 8, 1990, appellant brought the instant action against appellee based upon intentional tort. On March 8, 1993, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant filed a brief in response on April 20, 1993. The trial court granted appellee's motion on July 23, 1993, holding that appellant had failed to present evidence which would permit the trier of fact to infer that appellee knew of or anticipated the exact danger to appellant caused by the sparks flying from the induction heater. This appeal followed.
Appellant advances the following assignments of error:
Under his first assignment, appellant argues that his deposition testimony sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue as to whether appellee required appellant to continue working despite knowing that it was substantially certain that appellant would be injured as a result of the dangerous condition of the induction heater. Therefore, he argues summary judgment was improper.
In Osborne v. Lyles (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 327, 587 N.E.2d 825, 827, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated:
The trial court relied upon the tripartite test first set forth in Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 100, 522 N.E.2d 489, and subsequently modified in Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108. The test, as it currently stands, reads as follows:
Fyffe, supra, at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.
Appellant argues that he put forth sufficient facts to satisfy the three-prong Van Fossen- Fyffe test and defeat appellee's motion for summary judgment.
Under the first prong, appellant must demonstrate that appellee had knowledge of the existence of the dangerous process or condition within its plant. In his deposition, appellant stated that the induction heater had sprayed sparks on three or four prior occasions and that appellee was aware of this. Appellant stated that appellee regularly tightened the bolts, the loosening of which was alleged to be the cause of the sparking action. Appellant stated that although a cover was available to shield the surrounding area from the potential release of sparks from the induction heater, appellee only installed a metal grate in an effort to shield employees from possible exposure to the sparks.
We conclude that appellant satisfied this first prong.
The second prong of the test requires appellant to set forth facts showing that appellee had knowledge that if appellant was subjected by his employment to the dangerous condition, then harm to appellant would be a substantial certainty.
In support, appellant stated that despite appellee's continual effort to tighten the bolts on the induction heater, on three or four occasions, the bolts had nevertheless come loose, causing a spray of sparks to be released. Appellant also argued that appellee's installation of the grate over the heater is further evidence that appellee knew that harm to appellant was a substantial certainty.
Appellee counters by arguing that the prior releases of sparks had never sprayed in appellant's work area or, for that matter, in any employee's direction. As a result, no one had ever been hurt. Appellee argues that even if appellant has demonstrated that the sparking action could have caused harm to an employee over the course of time, this is not sufficient to show that such harm was a "substantial certainty."
In Rolain v. Metal Seal & Products, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1992), Lake App. No. 92-L-002, unreported, 1992 WL 267436, this court affirmed a summary judgment rendered in favor of an employer on an employee's claim of intentional tort. The employee died when a bundle of aluminum bars fell on him while he was performing his job as a materials handler. In her claim for wrongful death, the employee's spouse argued that the aluminum bars fell after a band securing the bundle snapped. The bands had broken on five or six previous occasions within a five-year period, but only by outside forces, and nobody was ever injured. The employee's spouse argued that the aluminum bars were stacked unsafely, in free-standing columns, nine or ten feet high. Further, employees had complained about the aluminum bars' propensity to shift or fall unexpectedly and had requested that racks be installed to store the bundles more securely.
In affirming the summary judgment, this court stated:
In the case sub judice, the sparking action had occurred on only three or four prior occasions between 1987 a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Medlen v. Estate of Meyers
...the risk of shooting, other cases have cautioned against reading too much into the "exact danger" language. Burns v. Presrite Corp., 97 Ohio App.3d 377, 384, 646 N.E.2d 892 (1994) (stating that the "exact danger" language in Sanek is simply a restatement of what proof is necessary to satisf......
-
Frances J. Brunn v. Valley Tool & Die, Inc.
... ... egregious cases. Sanek v. Duracote Corp., supra, 43 ... Ohio St.3d at 172, 539 N.E.2d at 1117 ... The ... McConville v. Jackson Comfort Systems (1994), 95 ... Ohio App.3d 297, 303; Burns v. Presrite Corp ... (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 377, 383; Youngbird v. Whirlpool ... Corp ... ...
-
Jon Suech v. World Stamping and Manufacturing Co.
... ... to show negligence or recklessness. Savak v. Duracote ... Corp. (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 169, 172; Brady v ... Safety-Kleen Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 624, ... intentional tort test. See Burns v. Presrite Corp ... (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 377, 381 ... The ... ...
-
Walton v. Springwood Products, Inc.
...court will review the trial court's decision to grant appellee's motion for summary judgment. This court, in Burns v. Presrite Corp. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 377, 646 N.E.2d 892, recently addressed the intentional tort issue. We "In Osborne v. Lyles (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 327, 587 N.E.2d ......