قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Employer measures do not indicate intent to harm

Employer measures do not indicate intent to harm



A worker who suffered damage to a machine could not show that his employer intentionally caused his injury.

In Bliss v. Johns Manville Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth District in Toledo on Friday reversed a jury that ruled that the employer intentionally released security guards on a machine that seriously injured the worker's hand.

John Bliss worked for the insulation insurer Johns Manville Corp. On November 17, 2015, he opened the access window. of a conveyor machine to clear a sensor while the machine was running and injured the removal of his right hand.

The plant had three such machines and the company had added bolts to the access windows on two of the three machines to prevent such damage. However, the machine that Bliss used did not have bolts to prevent employees from accessing the window.

He lodged a complaint with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas alleging that Johns Manville intentionally caused his injury and that it was removed by a security guard entitling him to the presumption that the company intended to harm. A jury was in favor of Mr. Bliss and awarded him $ 451

,000 in damages.

Johns Manville appealed for judgment despite the decision, arguing that there was no evidence that the company deliberately removed protective measures on the machine and that the trial court erred in denying its draft summary judgment. The Board of Appeal agreed and found that adding the bolts to the machines to deter workers from opening the access window did not constitute safety protection for the equipment and that there was no evidence that Johns Manville intended to injure the worker.

As a result, the court overturned the judgment and upheld the jury's decision.

Catalog


Source link