 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elder v. Summit Manufacturing3/20/1997
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Carl Elder, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of Summit Manufacturing, Inc., defendant-appellee, on plaintiff-appellant's intentional tort cause of action. Plaintiff-appellant assigns two errors for this court's review.
Plaintiff-appellant's appeal is not well taken.
I. THE FACTS
Summit Manufacturing, Inc., defendant-appellee, manufacturers and sells specialty abrasive materials. One of the products Summit Manufacturing produces are items designated as "spiral bands." Spiral bands are manufactured by sliding a cardboard tube coated with abrasive material onto the rotating shaft of a recutter machine. The recutter machine, a modified lathe with a spinning adjustable shaft and movable cutting blades, then cuts the cardboard tube into smaller ringlets called "spiral bands."
During operation of the recutter machine, excess glue and paper build up on the rotating shaft. The shaft must then be cleaned by the operator of the machine with sandpaper strips in order to insure efficiency. Operators of the recutter machines wore rubber gloves provided by Summit Manufacturing to protect their hands from the abrasive products while working on the machines.
In early December, 1993, Carl Elder, plaintiff-appellant, was hired by Summit Manufacturing as a recutter machine operator. Willie Zimmerman, a supervisor at Summit Manufacturing, trained plaintiff-appellant on the recutter. Plaintiff-appellant received approximately eight hours of training from Zimmerman on the recutter.
On December 9, 1993, plaintiff-appellant reported for work. Plaintiff-appellant worked on the recutter machine for approximately two hours. Due to a build up of glue and paper on the rotating shaft, plaintiff-appellant decided to clean the shaft of the recutter. Plaintiff-appellant took a piece of sandpaper and placed it around the rotating shaft as he had been instructed by Summit Manufacturing and as he had learned at previous jobs. At the time, plaintiff-appellant was wearing what were characterized as "loose fitting rubber gloves" provided by Summit Manufacturing. During the cleaning process, the rotating shaft of the recutter machine caught the little finger of plaintiff-appellant's loose fitting glove and twisted plaintiff-appellant's hand into the rotating shaft, pulling off plaintiff-appellant's right thumb. As a result of this incident, plaintiff-appellant suffered permanent functional and cosmetic injuries to his right hand.
Approximately one month prior to plaintiff-appellant's injuries, Carlos Borrero, a recutter operator for Summit Manufacturing, suffered a similar injury to his right index finger while working on the same recutter machine involved in plaintiff-appellant's injury. However, the underlying circumstances of Borrero's injury differed from that of plaintiff-appellant in that Borrero was injured while actually operating the recutter machine and plaintiff-appellant was injured attempting to clean the recutter machine.
On September 15, 1994, plaintiff-appellant filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging an intentional tort against Summit Manufacturing arising out of plaintiff-appellant's injuries which occurred on the recutter machine. Plaintiff- appellant maintained that the rotating shaft of the recutter machine combined with the loose-fitting rubber gloves provided by Summit Manufacturing constituted a known dangerous condition substantially certain to lead to employee injury and, in spite of the known risk, Summit Manufacturing required plaint
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|