Grubbs v. Emery Air Freight Corp

In Grubbs v. Emery Air Freight Corp. (Dec. 17, 1999), 2nd Dist. No. 17848, 1999 Ohio App, the court held that an employee failed to meet the requirements of Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988) when he alleged that he was struck by a forklift driven by another employee. The employee had also alleged, in a conclusory fashion, that Emery, his employer, knew the work conditions were unsafe and substantially certain to cause injury, but required him to work around dangerous equipment and unsafe working conditions. Grubbs also alleged that Emery "disregarded the fact that he needed to be warned and instructed about the unsafe and dangerous equipment and unsafe working conditions, including, but not limited to the aforementioned fork lift." In addition, he alleged that Emery had failed to adequately train him "on the dangerous equipment and unsafe working conditions," and that Emery failed to "provide proper safety procedures concerning the forklift and unsafe working conditions." The court concluded that the allegations were conclusory, and that the plaintiff had failed to allege a factual basis or background for the claims. The court noted that there was no information in the complaint about the circumstances of the accident and about why the conditions were dangerous. In addition, there were no factual allegations indicating that Emery had knowledge that the equipment or working conditions were dangerous or that injury was substantially certain to occur. Hogue v. Navistar Intl. Truck & Engine, 2nd Dist. No. 2006 CA 85, 2007 Ohio 4720, PP 15-18, citing Grubbs, supra.