 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Felden v. Ashland Chem. Co.11/1/1993
DAVID T. MATIA, Judge.
Defendant-appellant and cross-appellee, Ashland Chemical Company, Inc. ("Ashland"), appeals from a jury verdict which was rendered on behalf of plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant, Walter Felden, in the amount of $3.5 million. The appeal, as raised by Ashland, involves the issues of denial of a motion for a directed verdict/judgment notwithstanding the verdict, denial of a motion for summary judgment, improper evidentiary rulings which allowed the admission of remedial measures testimony and hearsay testimony, verdict against the weight of the evidence, denial of a motion for new trial, improper jury instructions and the award of prejudgment interest.
Walter Felden has filed a cross-appeal. Felden's cross-assignment of error involves the issue of the deduction of collateral benefits from the $3.5 million verdict that was rendered by the jury.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
A. FELDEN IS INJURED WHILE DISCHARGING HIS DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE
Walter Felden was employed by Ashland as a kettle operator at a chemical plant located at 2191 West 110th Street, Cleveland, Ohio. As part of his employment, Felden was required to mix various batches of highly acidic and caustic chemicals in order to produce resins that were used to manufacture metascastings. On August 24, 1989, Felden was combining seven acidic, caustic or alkali raw materials in order to produce a product called "Chemrez 57962." In need of formic acid, Felden traveled to the "telephone" building. While transporting two fifty-five gallon drums of formic acid on a forklift to the kettle house, Felden struck a concrete-filled steel post which was located in the middle of the plant driveway.
The collision with the steel post resulted in a rupture of one of the fifty-five gallon drums of formic acid. Felden was sprayed by the escaping acid and suffered third-degree burns to twenty-three percent of his body (face, eyes, arms, leg and side) plus loss of sight.
B. FELDEN FILES COMPLAINT BASED UPON CLAIM OF AN INTENTIONAL TORT
On June 21, 1990, Felden filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The original complaint of Felden, as well as two subsequent amended complaints, raised the claim of an intentional tort against Ashland. On October 25, 1990, Ashland filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 28, 1991, the trial court denied Ashland's motion for summary judgment.
C. THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT FOR FELDEN
On June 8, 1992, a jury trial was commenced with regard to Felden's claim of an intentional tort. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict on behalf of Felden in the amount of $3.5 million. In addition, the jury answered six interrogatories as follows:
1. "Do you find that Plaintiff Walter Felden has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to punitive damages, as defined by the court.
"Answer: No"
2. "Has the Plaintiff proved by a greater weight or preponderance of the evidence that Ashland Chemical, Inc. intended, as defined by the court, to injure Walter Felden?
"Answer: Yes"
3. "Did Ashland Chemical, Inc. have knowledge of the existence of a dangerous instrumentality within its business operations?
"Answer: Yes"
4. "Do you find that Ashland Chemical, Inc. knew that injury to Walter Felden was substantially certain to result from his normal activities as a kettle operator at the Ashland plant?
"Answer: Yes"
5. "Do you find that Plaintiff ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|