| The following
information is provided courtesy of the Ohio Workers'
Compensation Bulletin. For information about the Bulletin
click
here.
Employer
Committed Intentional Tort
Harbin
v. Ohi-Tec Mfg., Inc. (6/14/02), Clark No.
2001CA-70, 2002-Ohio-2923:
Issue: Did evidence support jury
finding of an intentional tort?
Background: Harbin worked on a
mechanical press. Occasionally pieces of metal would get caught in the
press. Harbin was instructed by his supervisor to press the "top stop"
button, wait for the press to stop, and then reach in with his hand or
a screwdriver to remove the metal.
The Employer never warned Harbin of the dangers of the
press, nor did they follow safety procedures which were followed in the
industry.
Harbin's left little finger and ring finger were
amputated, and his left middle finger was crushed when the machine
cycled while he was following the procedure to remove metal from the
press.
Harbin filed an intentional tort claim against the
Employer. A jury found in his favor, but the trial Court granted the
Employer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new
trial.
Decision: Court of Appeals reverses
(3-0).
Court finds that Harbin had presented evidence on each
of the intentional tort factors sufficient to support the jury's
verdict. Harbin presented evidence from a safety expert that the
machine had been modified to run at a much higher speed, which
essentially removed a safety device. Evidence also demonstrated that
Employer had trained Harbin in unsafe procedure and failed to train
employees (including Harbin) in use of proper safety devices.
Court also finds that even though there was no similar
injury, the press had only been used in this fashion for two years, and
lack of similar injury does not demonstrate lack of Employer knowledge
of certainty of harm.
Editor's Comment: Court finds that
evidence was sufficient to support jury award of punitive damages.
Click on the case name
to view the decision on
the Supreme
Court's web site.
|