Publications + Presentations

Summary

Camara is a clarification, not a broad expansion, of Ohio employer intentional-tort liability. R.C. 2745.01(C) still requires evidence that the employer affirmatively removed a safety guard. Mere knowledge of a missing guard, failure to repair it, poor maintenance, or permitting a hazardous condition to exist does not, by itself, constitute “deliberate removal.” 

---

In Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3056, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed both the scope of the rebuttable presumption in Ohio’s employer intentional-tort statute, R.C. 2745.01(C), and the record an appellate court must review after a case proceeds to trial. The decision preserves meaningful limits on employer intentional-tort claims while confirming that circumstantial evidence may permit a plaintiff to reach a jury.

Key Holdings

• An employee who proves that an employer deliberately removed a safety guard need not separately prove that the employer consciously decided never to replace or reattach it.
• A plaintiff may use direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the employer committed the affirmative act of removal.
• The Court did not expand “deliberate removal” to include omissions, negligent maintenance, failure to repair, or mere knowledge that a guard is missing.
• After trial, appellate review of a summary-judgment denial based on disputed facts must account for the full trial record, not solely the pretrial summary-judgment record.

Case Background: Missing Safety Guards Led to Injury

The employee was severely injured when clothing became caught in an unguarded, rotating power take-off shaft on a sand spreader. The equipment originally had two safety guards, but the guards were missing or incomplete when the accident occurred. The employee asserted an employer intentional-tort claim under R.C. 2745.01 and argued that the statutory presumption applied because the employer had deliberately removed the guards.

The trial court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute concerning deliberate removal. Following trial, the jury found for the employee and awarded $1,934,000 in compensatory damages. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the employer should have prevailed on summary judgment. It required proof that the employer both removed the guard and made a considered decision not to reattach it.

The Supreme Court Rejects an Extra Element for Deliberate Removal

The Supreme Court focused on the text of R.C. 2745.01(C), which provides that an employer’s deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard creates a rebuttable presumption of intent when an injury occurs as a direct result. The statute requires deliberate removal, and nothing more. The Court therefore rejected the Twelfth District’s additional requirement that the employee prove a conscious decision not to reinstall the guard.

Once evidence supports a finding that the employer affirmatively removed the guard, the employee need not prove an independent intent never to replace it. The presumption remains rebuttable, and the employer may present evidence that it did not intend to injure the employee.

No Expansion to Omissions or Recklessness

The defense-side limitation is equally important. Camara does not hold that an employer deliberately removes a guard merely by knowing that a guard is missing or by failing to repair, replace, inspect, or maintain it. Consistent with Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., deliberate removal requires an affirmative act such as lifting, pushing aside, taking off, or otherwise eliminating an equipment safety guard.

Thus, the distinction remains between affirmative removal, which may trigger the R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption, and negligent maintenance or permitting a dangerous condition to exist, which does not by itself establish deliberate removal. Recklessness remains insufficient to establish the intent required by R.C. 2745.01(A).

Circumstantial Evidence May Create a Jury Question

The Court confirmed that a plaintiff need not identify an eyewitness who saw the employer physically remove the guard. Circumstantial evidence may establish removal. In Camara, the evidence showed that maintenance work required removal of a guard, that the guard was later observed to be missing, and that the employer had performed or arranged work on the equipment. The Court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer deliberate removal from that evidence, even though other inferences were possible.

Procedural Holding: Appellate Review of the Full Trial Record

The Court also held that when summary judgment is denied because a genuine issue of material fact exists and the case later proceeds to trial, an appellate court reviewing that ruling must consider the full record developed at trial. The appellate court may not overturn the final judgment based solely on a segregated review of the earlier summary-judgment record. Pure legal issues remain reviewable after trial, but factual sufficiency must be assessed in light of the complete record.

Employer Takeaways and Defending Intentional Tort Claims

• Summary judgment remains viable. Claims involving only a missing or damaged guard, without evidence linking the employer to an affirmative act of removal, remain strong candidates for dispositive motion practice.
• Document guard removal and reinstallation. Work orders should identify who removed a guard, why removal was necessary, when it was reattached, and who verified that the machine was safe before returning it to service.
• Preserve maintenance and custody evidence. Repair histories, photographs, inspection logs, vendor records, purchase records, and witness testimony may determine whether circumstantial evidence creates a jury question.
• Remove inadequately guarded equipment from service. A written lockout, repair, and return-to-service process can reduce both accident risk and later evidentiary uncertainty.
• Coordinate post-accident submissions. Information supplied to OSHA, the BWC, insurers, investigators, and counsel should be accurate, consistent, and preserved.

What Camara Means for Ohio Employers

Camara eliminates an additional burden that some courts had placed on employees seeking the R.C. 2745.01(C) presumption, but it does not convert ordinary negligence, poor maintenance, or knowledge of a missing guard into an employer intentional tort. The plaintiff still must prove that the employer affirmatively and deliberately removed the guard. For Ohio employers, the decision reinforces both the value of early summary-judgment analysis and the need for disciplined documentation of equipment maintenance and safety-guard handling.

If your organization is navigating an employer intentional-tort claim, evaluating exposure related to equipment safety guards, or looking to strengthen its documentation and lockout practices, contact Jacob Dobres or your Kegler Labor + Employment attorney.