Summary
In Beyer v. Rieter Automotive North American, 134 Ohio St.3d 379, 2012-Ohio-5627, 982 N.E.2d 708, relying upon the Hewitt decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals that found that face masks were equipment safety guards, and consequently entered judgment in favor of the employer.
Summary of this case from Turner v. Dimex, LLCOpinion
No. 2012–1283.
2012-12-5
BEYER et al., Appellees and Cross–Appellant, v. RIETER AUTOMOTIVE NORTH AMERICAN, INC., et al., Appellant and Cross–Appellee.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L–11–1110,2012-Ohio-2807, 973 N.E.2d 318. Spitler & Williams–Young Co., L.P.A., Marc G. Williams–Young, Toledo, and Elaine B. Szuch, for appellees and cross-appellants, Thomas H. Beyer and Sherry Beyer. Weston Hurd, L.L.P., Shawn W. Maestle, and Jeffrey L. Tasse, Cleveland, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L–11–1110,2012-Ohio-2807, 973 N.E.2d 318.
Spitler & Williams–Young Co., L.P.A., Marc G. Williams–Young, Toledo, and Elaine B. Szuch, for appellees and cross-appellants, Thomas H. Beyer and Sherry Beyer. Weston Hurd, L.L.P., Shawn W. Maestle, and Jeffrey L. Tasse, Cleveland, for appellant and cross-appellee.
[Ohio St.3d 379]{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal and cross-appeal are accepted. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Hewitt v. L.E. Myers, 134 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-5317, 981 N.E.2d 795, and judgment is entered in favor of Rieter Automotive North American, Inc. O'CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and McGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.