Employers should pay close attention to the case of Seaton v. Willoughby, 2018-Ohio-77, as it demonstrates how employers can lose immunity from workplace injuries under the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act.
The case arises out of the unfortunate death of a member of a city’s street crew. The crew member was “operating an asphalt roller known as the Maudlin Brothers Model 1450” at the top of a hill when a resident needed to exit his driveway. The crew member “moved the asphalt roller forward to allow the resident to exit his driveway. Unexpectedly, the roller began to roll down an incline at a high rate of speed. [The crew member] could not stop the roller as it careened out of control. When he attempted to jump off the machine to safety, he struck his head on the pavement. He subsequently died from his injuries.” Seaton at ¶ 2.
The estate filed a lawsuit against the city. Ordinarily, the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act provides immunity to employers from liability to employees. Indeed, “a workers’ compensation claim is an employee’s exclusive remedy for most workplace injuries.” Seaton at ¶ 10. However, when an employee seeks damages resulting from an act or omission committed by the employer with the “intent to injure,” the workers’ compensation system does not provide that employer with immunity.
Case law provides that the deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment “safety guard” creates a presumption that the removal was committed with the intent to injure that employee if an injury results. In this case, the “safety guard” at issue was the parking brake which failed to stop the asphalt roller as it careened out of control.
The City argued that there was no evidence that it deliberately removed or disabled the parking brake on the asphalt roller. However, the appellate court found that there “was a question of material fact regarding whether the City deliberately removed a safety guard by disabling the parking break.” Seaton at ¶ 18. Among other things, the appellate court pointed to the testimony of the supervisor of maintenance and repairs who acknowledged that, over the years, the city substantially modified several aspects of the braking system from the time that the City received the asphalt roller from the manufacturer.
The case is particularly instructive for public employers who maintain aging fleets of equipment. By necessity, employers may need to modify or even “MacGyver” these vehicles in order to keep them operational. Such employers must consider that, while these modifications keep the equipment operational, it may also expose them to liability through the “intent to injure” exception to the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.