 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Breitenstein v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co.3/10/2000
OPINION.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
This appeal involves an electrician, plaintiff-appellant Robert A. Breitenstein, who was injured in July 1997 while working on a boom lift. At the time of the injury, Breitenstein was employed by Troy Electric, Inc., which was a subcontractor hired by defendant-appellee E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. (Du Pont) to perform electrical upgrades at one of Du Pont's plants in Cincinnati. Defendant-appellee Grove U.S. L.L.C. (Grove) was the manufacturer of the boom lift.
Breitenstein's injuries occurred while the boom lift was supposed to be idling in neutral. The boom lift drifted slowly upward and pinned him against a cable tray.
Breitenstein brought suit against Du Pont, Grove, and Troy Electric, asserting various products-liability and negligence claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for all three defendants.
In his sole assignment of error, Breitenstein alleges that the court erred in granting summary judgment to Du Pont and Grove. (Breitenstein has not appealed the judgment in favor of Troy Electric.) Summary judgment is appropriately granted if the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, determines that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated, and that the evidence demonstrates that reasonable minds can only come to a conclusion that is adverse to the party opposing the motion. Applying that standard, we hold that summary judgment was properly granted for Du Pont, but not for Grove.
I. Du Pont
The trial court granted summary judgment to Du Pont for two reasons. First, it held that Du Pont owed no duty of care to Breitenstein. Second, it held that Du Pont was not liable due to assumption of the risk. Because we conclude that the court's first reason was correct, we express no opinion on the assumption-of-risk issue.
Ordinarily, a party who engages the services of an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous task is not liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor's employees. An exception exists if the party actually participates in the inherently dangerous task and negligently fails to eliminate a hazard to the independent contractor's employees.
Here, Du Pont engaged the services of an independent contractor, Troy Electric, which employed Breitenstein. Our review of the record reveals no evidence that Du Pont controlled or participated in the work performed by Troy Electric at the plant where Breitenstein was injured—a genuine issue of fact does not exist in this respect. Thus, we hold that Du Pont was not liable for Breitenstein's injuries, and we affirm the judgment entered in its favor.
II. Grove
The trial court granted summary judgment for Grove on the basis that Breitenstein had assumed the risk of his injuries as a matter of law. Assumption of the risk is a viable defense against an employee injured by a defective product in the workplace. To affirm the summary judgment on Breitenstein's products-liability claims based on assumption of the risk, we must conclude that Breitenstein voluntarily, knowingly, and unreasonably assumed the risk of using the defective boom lift. On the negligence claims, we must conclude that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applied. The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk supposes that the defendant owes no duty to the injured plaintiff. It is based on the proposition that some known risks are inherent in a particular situation.
Here, on
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|