Jester Ex Rel. Estate of Jester v. Utilimap Corp.

Ohio Ct. App.November 30, 2018No. NO. C-170576Cited 3 times

RemandedUtilimap Corporation

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Deters
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of nearly $28 million against Utilimap and remanded the case because the trial court erred in prohibiting Utilimap from presenting an empty-chair defense and arguing Duke Energy's comparative fault to the jury.

Excerpt

NEGLIGENCE – NEW TRIAL – R.C. 2307.23 – EMPTY-CHAIR DEFENSE: In a wrongful-death action brought by the surviving spouse of a utility worker who died when a rotted utility pole collapsed on him, the trial court did not err in denying the pole inspection company's motion for judgment as a matter of law based upon assumption of the risk: The inspection company cannot invoke the inherently-dangerous-activity exception under Eicher v. U.S. Steel Corp., 32 Ohio St.3d 248, 512 N.E.2d 1165 (1987), because the company did not own or control the premises where the utility worker was injured, the utility worker was not an independent contractor, and the underground rot on a utility pole is not the kind of danger inherent in utility work, such that it cannot be eliminated. The trial court erred in prohibiting defendant pole inspection company from arguing the empty-chair defense with respect to the deceased's employer, and the trial court erred in denying the company's requests to include the employer on the jury interrogatories and verdict form: The plain language of R.C. 2307.23 allows a jury to apportion fault to an employer, even if that employer is immune from suit under the workers' compensation statutes, and the trial court's error is not harmless where reasonable minds could differ as to whether the deceased employer's actions proximately caused the employee's death.

What This Ruling Means

# Plain English Summary: Jester v. Utilimap Corp. **What Happened** A utility worker died when a rotted utility pole collapsed on him. His surviving spouse sued Utilimap Corporation, the company that inspected the pole, claiming negligence led to his death. The trial court found Utilimap responsible and awarded nearly $28 million in damages. **What the Court Decided** Ohio's appellate court overturned the decision and sent the case back for a new trial. The court found the trial judge made an error by not allowing Utilimap to argue that another company (Duke Energy, who owned the pole) shared responsibility for the accident. This "empty-chair defense" lets defendants explain how other parties contributed to the harm. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling affects workplace safety cases involving multiple companies. It ensures that employers and contractors can present a full defense by pointing out other parties' failures. For workers' families pursuing wrongful-death claims, it means cases may be more complicated—they'll need to prove their employer or contractor was primarily responsible, not just partially responsible, for the accident.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wrongful Termination cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1945

Plaintiff Win

Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtJun 1956

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Utilimap Corporation Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More wrongful termination cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.