Generally, an employee who is injured, which includes contracting an occupational disease while in the course and scope of his employment, is limited under a state’s workers’ compensation system with the employer being immune from suit. An exception to this immunity is where the claimant employee asserts a cause of action that his/her injury arose from the employer’s “intentional tortious conduct.”
The General Assembly redrafted the intentional tort statute in 2005 to limit the amount of claims in Ohio for intentional tortious conduct by employers. The intentional tort statute is found at O.R.C. 2745.01. Under the statute, an employer shall not be liable for an intentional tort unless the plaintiff proves that the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur. The term “substantially certain”, under the statute, means that an employer acts with a deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death. There is also a provision in this statute whereby a deliberate removal by an employer of an “equipment safety guard” creates a rebuttal presumption that the removal was committed with the intent to injure another if an injury or an occupational disease occurs as a direct result.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “equipment safety guards.” The Court of Appeals in Beyer v. Rieter Automotive North American, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-11-1110, 2012-Ohio-2807, found that the term “equipment safety guard” under Ohio’s intentional tort statute included free-standing equipment, such as face masks.
The plaintiff in Beyer filed a complaint against Rieter Automotive for the injuries allegedly sustained by Beyer while working in its manufacturing plant. Mr. Beyer and his wife alleged an intentional tort after being exposed to silicosis, a progressive lung disease, as a result of breathing in dust particles of silica while working in the plant for thirty years. Thus, Mr. Beyer and his wife were alleging an additional cause of action under intentional tort on top of his workers’ compensation occupational disease claim. Mr. Beyer claimed that the employer deliberately removed “equipment safety guards”, and that the removal was done with the intent to cause his lung disease. Mr. Beyer alleged that the face masks at the plant were personal protection equipment and were necessary to prevent exposure to injury. Also according to Mr. Beyer, the employer knew the face masks were locked at certain times, preventing their use, but still required employees such as Mr. Beyer to perform their jobs under conditions in which breathing in silica dust was certain to occur.
The employer, Rieter Automotive North American, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment before the trial court arguing that the face masks were not “equipment safety guards”, under Ohio’s intentional tort statute. The trial court agreed with the employer noting that face masks were not “equipment safety guards”, and also determined that Mr. Beyer and his wife failed to demonstrate the specific intent to injure Mr. Beyer under Ohio’s intentional tort statute. Mr. and Mrs. Beyer appealed the matter to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, who reversed the decision of the trial court.
The appeals court in Beyer looked at the meaning of “equipment safety guards.” The Sixth District Court of Appeals determined that it was absurd to interpret “equipment safety guard” to mean protective equipment only attached to a machine. Instead, the Beyer court determined that the better result was to include freestanding equipment such as face masks within the meaning of “equipment safety guard” under Ohio’s intentional tort statute. The court’s reasoning was that excluding face masks from the intentional tort statute would permit, if not invite, employers to escape liability for intentional tort actions by supposedly providing protective equipment but never actually distributing it or making it available to their employees. Therefore, the court of appeals determined that Mr. and Mrs. Beyer presented enough evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of Rieter Automotive North American, Inc.’s deliberate intent to injure Mr. Beyer due to the removal of an “equipment safety guard” i.e. his face mask.
This decision of the Sixth District Court of Appeals is significant in that an “equipment safety guard” was interpreted to include freestanding safety equipment that does not necessarily have to be attached to a machine. Thus, an intentional tort claim could also arise in the situation of a deliberate removal of “equipment safety guards” such as personal protective clothing, protective rubber gloves, eye and face protection, and hearing protection just to name a few. The safest practice is to ensure that employees are provided with adequate access to “equipment safety guards” so as to not create an inference that there was a deliberate removal by the employer of a particular piece of “equipment safety guard.” Making the “equipment safety guard” available to employees may not completely eliminate the possibility of having a compensable injury or occupational disease claim for purposes of workers’ compensation, but it can insulate employers from possible intentional tort claims.
If you would like a copy of this decision, or have any other question involving workers’ compensation or employment practices liability, please contact a member of our Workers’ Compensation or Employment and Labor Law Practice Groups.