## Facts

- William Davenport, an employee using a cherry picker (aerial lift) owned by his employer, Wendell Fisher, was injured when the cherry picker collapsed.
- The collapse was allegedly caused by a defect in an “old style” rod-end assembly within the boom mechanism.
- Before the accident, Fisher sent the cherry picker to E.H.J. Skyworker Services, Inc. (Skyworker) for repair.
- During the repair process, Herbert Van Dyke (associated with Skyworker) communicated with Glenn W. Way, president of Correct Manufacturing Corporation (Correct) and designer of the rod-end assembly.
- Record evidence, viewed in Davenport’s favor, indicated Way told Van Dyke that the rod-end assembly was defective and needed replacement.
- Davenport alleged Skyworker either had actual knowledge of the defect and failed to warn Fisher, or should have discovered the defect and warned Fisher using reasonable care.
- Skyworker denied knowledge and argued that any information Van Dyke learned about the defect was acquired before Van Dyke became Skyworker’s agent, and therefore could not be imputed to Skyworker.

## Issues

1. Whether a corporation may be charged, for purposes of tort duties to third parties, with specialized knowledge an employee acquired before the employee began working for the corporation when that knowledge relates directly to the employee’s corporate duties.
2. Whether summary judgment for the repair company was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding knowledge of the defect (actual or imputed) and the repairer’s duty to inspect and/or warn.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule that pre-employment knowledge can never be imputed to the employer.
- The Court held a corporation may, in appropriate circumstances, be charged with an employee’s specialized pre-employment knowledge when that knowledge is directly related to the employee’s duties for the corporation.
- The Court agreed summary judgment for Skyworker was improper because material factual disputes existed regarding Skyworker’s knowledge, the obviousness of the defect, and the scope of any inspection and warning duties.
- The Court affirmed the appellate judgment reversing the trial court’s summary judgment and remanding, but reversed the appellate court’s limitation on imputing Van Dyke’s pre-employment knowledge.

## Legal Principles

- Corporate knowledge may be established through the knowledge of the individuals through whom the corporation acts; specialized knowledge possessed by an employee may be imputed to the corporation when tied to the employee’s work responsibilities.
- An employer is not automatically insulated from liability merely because the employee acquired relevant specialized knowledge before the employment relationship began.
- A repairer of potentially dangerous equipment may owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect for defects and warn the owner of dangers that are, or should be, discovered in the course of the repair relationship.
- Summary judgment is improper where reasonable factfinders could differ on material questions concerning a defendant’s knowledge, whether a defect was patent, and the existence or scope of a duty to warn.

## Conclusion

The court held that a repair company could be charged with an employee’s pre-employment specialized knowledge when that knowledge relates to the employee’s duties, and it allowed negligence and duty-to-warn claims to proceed because factual disputes about knowledge, defect obviousness, and repair obligations made summary judgment inappropriate.


Davenport v. Correct Mfg. Corp., 24 Ohio St. 3d 131, 493 N.E.2d 1331 (Ohio 1986)