DocketNumber: No. WM-04-011.
Citation Numbers: 165 Ohio App. 3d 319, 2005 Ohio 6130
Judges: SINGER, Presiding Judge.
Filed Date: 11/18/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
{¶ 38} I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 39} The majority writes that there are questions of fact as to whether appellant had any knowledge and appreciation of the danger represented by the corn picker. I disagree. When the machine clogged for the second or third time that morning, appellant made a calculated decision not to turn off the power and grabbed the stalks of corn in an attempt to dislodge them. To suggest that appellant did not appreciate the risk inherent in working on such a powerful machine without turning it off is unrealistic. As to his knowledge of the risk, appellant demonstrated in his deposition testimony a familiarity with the workings of the corn picker. Appellant had used the machine before and had seen his father use it. In the words of the majority, if a clog does not clear by stopping the forward motion of the machine, the operator is instructed to stop the PTO and remove debris by hand.
{¶ 40} The majority opinion fails to acknowledge established Ohio case law regarding assumption of risk. Assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff has full knowledge of a condition, the condition is patently dangerous, and the plaintiff voluntarily exposes himself to the hazard created. Briere v. Lathrop Co.
(1970),
{¶ 41} The majority further concludes that regardless of the trial court's determination as to primary causation of the injuries, a question of fact exists as to whether an enhanced-injuries claim could be sustained. This conclusion fails to acknowledge relevant Ohio case law. In Leichtamer v. Am.Motors Corp. (1981),
{¶ 42} Accordingly, I would deny both assignments of error and would affirm the judgment of the trial court.