News Detail

Verdict Spotlight

by Christopher Mellino

The consensus following the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 2010 Ohio 1027 was that intentional tort cases against employers are no longer viable in Ohio.

CATA members Frank Gallucci and Michael Shroge debunked that sentiment by obtaining a $597,785 verdict for their client, Larry Hewitt, against his employer, L.E. Meyers Group, in just such a case. The case was tried in front of Judge Thomas Pokorny in Cuyahoga County last September. Mr. Hewitt was badly burnedby 7200 volts of electricity while on the job as a second step apprentice. He suffered second and third degree burns on his right hand, arm, shoulder and back. His injuries also resulted in reflex sympathetic dystrophy of his right arm, which is his dominant arm.

So, how did Plaintiffs overcome the burden of establishing a (/deliberate intent to cause injuries" by the employer as required by R.C. 2745.01 and the Court in Kaminski? Not only did attorneys Gallucci and Shroge prove their case, they did it without any expert testimony on liability. They simply relied on the facts of the case.

On the day in question, at the morning safety meeting, two of the company's foremen decided that the workers did not need to wear rubber gloves and protective sleeves that day. Mr. Hewitt was working alone in a bucket on deenergized lines while his supervisor was on the ground directing traffic. As a truck was passing by, the supervisor yelled up to the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff turned to see what the supervisor was yelling about he came in contact with an energized line carrying 7200 volts of electricity.

During the depositions of the Defendant's employees it was established that the company's safety rules prohibited apprentices from: working solo in a bucket around high voltages; working unsupervised; and working around energized lines without rubber gloves and sleeves. Frank and Mike obtained admissions from five different company employees that the removal of these safeguards were (/ deliberately and intentionally made decisions" which got them past a directed verdict and int<? the jury's hands.
Another unusual aspect of the case was that the jury consisted of highly educated, white collar professionals including an internal medicine physician, a physiotherapist, the son of a partner at the law firm Thompson Hine, the wife of a CFO, and a c.P.A. The advantage to the Plaintiff was that the jury understood the statute and knew exactly what they were looking for as they went through the evidence. Something to consider when selecting your next jury.

Congratulations Frank and Mike on a job well
done.

|back|