## Facts

- Michael Cremeans worked for a fertilizer company operating a front-end loader inside large fertilizer bins.
- The bins had interior metal support bars that created about seven feet of clearance, preventing an operator from sitting upright while entering or exiting.
- The loader manufacturer sold the machine to the employer without protective cage structures that were otherwise standard safety features.
- The manufacturer knew the purchaser needed a loader configuration that could fit inside the bins and that adding the protective structures would make entry impossible.
- The sales arrangement required the purchaser to assume liability arising from the absence or removal of the protective structures, and the invoice reflected that allocation.
- While Cremeans was exiting a bin after loading fertilizer, a fertilizer “avalanche” fell onto the loader’s front end, lifting the rear wheels and pinning Cremeans between the seat and the doorway or a support bar, causing serious injury.
- Evidence indicated the protective structures would have prevented the injury mechanism.
- Cremeans knew fertilizer avalanches had occurred previously, knew the loader lacked a protective cage, had expressed safety concerns, and still used the loader because it was part of his assigned work.

## Issues

1. Whether assumption of risk bars a products-liability claim when an employee continues to face a known product-related danger that must be encountered to perform required job duties.
2. Whether the employee’s continued use of the product in those circumstances is “voluntary and unreasonable” as a matter of law for purposes of the assumption-of-risk defense.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of summary judgment for the manufacturer.
- The Court held that an employee does not voluntarily or unreasonably assume the risk of injury occurring in the course of employment when the risk must be encountered in the normal performance of required job duties.
- The Court ruled that Cremeans’s continued operation of the loader as required by his employment did not, as a matter of law, constitute assumption of risk that would bar his products-liability claims.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Assumption of risk, as a complete bar, requires knowledge of the risk and voluntary, unreasonable exposure to it.
- In the employment context, exposure to a known risk is not “voluntary” for assumption-of-risk purposes when job duties effectively compel the employee to confront the risk.
- A manufacturer’s contractual allocation of liability to the purchaser does not eliminate the manufacturer’s potential products-liability responsibility to an injured employee-user.
- Whether conduct is voluntary and unreasonable may remain a fact question when the employee’s choice is constrained by required work responsibilities.

## Conclusion

The court limited the assumption-of-risk defense in workplace products-liability cases, holding that an employee’s continued exposure to a known danger is not a voluntary, unreasonable acceptance of risk when the danger must be faced to perform required job duties, so the claim should proceed beyond summary judgment.


Cremeans v. Willmar Henderson Mfg. Co., 57 Ohio St. 3d 145, 566 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 1991)