Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	9. Contingencies The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and a party to various other legal proceedings, in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered in whole or in part by insurance. New Idria Mercury Mine Effective October 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the New Idria Mercury Mine site located near Hollister, California to the Superfund National Priorities List because of alleged contaminants discharged to California waterways. The New Idria Quicksilver Mining Company, founded in 1936, and later renamed the New Idria Mining & Chemical Company ("NIMCC") owned and/or operated the New Idria Mine through 1976. In 1981 NIMCC, after another name change, was merged into Buckhorn Metal Products Inc. which was subsequently acquired by Myers Industries in 1987. The EPA contends that past mining operations have resulted in mercury contamination and acid mine drainage at the mine site, in the San Carlos Creek, Silver Creek and a portion of Panoche Creek, and that other downstream locations may also be impacted. In September 2015, a subsidiary of the Company, Buckhorn, Inc. (“Buckhorn”) received a notice letter and related documents from EPA (the “Notice Letter”) formally informing Buckhorn that it considers it to be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site. As a result of this Notice Letter, Buckhorn and the Company expect to engage in negotiations with EPA with respect to a draft Administrative Order proposed by EPA for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the site to determine the extent of remediation necessary and the screening of alternatives. The Company recognized an expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a RI/FS. As part of the Notice Letter, EPA also made a claim for approximately $1.6 million in past costs for actions it claims it has taken in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site since 1993. These costs include approximately $0.5 million for an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site completed by the EPA in November 2011. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. The Company currently expects to challenge EPA's past cost claims. The Company reserved an additional $1.3 million in 2015 related to the EPA claim, reflected as an increase in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total payments of approximately $1.2 million have been made and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position, which brings the total accrued balance related to this matter to $2.0 million at December 31, 2015. As negotiations with the EPA proceed with respect to the RI/FS, it is possible that adjustments to the aforementioned reserves will be necessary to reflect new information. Estimates of the Company’s liability are based on current facts, laws, regulations and technology. Estimates of the Company’s environmental liabilities are further subject to uncertainties regarding the negotiations with EPA, the nature and extent of site contamination, the range of remediation alternatives available, evolving remediation standards, imprecise engineering evaluation and cost estimates, the extent of remedial actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs that may be named as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, we have not accrued for remediation costs in connection with this site as we are unable to estimate the liability, given the circumstances referred to above, including the fact the final remediation strategy has not yet been determined. Other Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems, Inc. (“SAS”) were plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Orbis Corp. and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (“Orbis”) for alleged breach by Orbis of an exclusive patent license agreement from SAS to Buckhorn. SAS is an affiliate of Schoeller Arca Systems Services B.V. (“SASS B.V.”), a Dutch company. SAS manufactures and sells plastic returnable packaging systems for material handling. In the course of the litigation, it was discovered that SAS had given a patent license agreement to a predecessor of Orbis that pre-dated the one that SAS sold to Buckhorn. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Orbis, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs to Orbis in the amount of $3.1 million, plus interest and costs. In May 2014, Orbis made demand to SAS that SAS pay the judgment in full, and subsequently in July 2014, Orbis made the same demand to Buckhorn. Buckhorn believed it was not responsible for any of the judgment because it was not a party to the Orbis license. Despite this belief, the Company recorded expense of $3.0 million during the third quarter of 2014 for the entire amount of the unpaid judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against Buckhorn on July 2, 2015, and found that Buckhorn was not liable to Orbis for any portion of the judgment entered in favor of Orbis. Accordingly, Myers reversed the accrual of $3.0 million during 2015, which was reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Orbis' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. All opportunities for Orbis to appeal have expired. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has now released Buckhorn’s appellate bond. Buckhorn is also pursuing legal action against SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell and related claims. That case is now pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay any judgment against it and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS was in financial distress while SASS B.V. was financially stable. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial status, it is not known at this time what the likelihood of recovering from SAS (or SASS B.V.) would be in the event that there is a favorable outcome for Buckhorn in the New York court. When management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable of occurrence than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters will be assessed and the estimates will be revised, if necessary. Based on current available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or overall trends in our results of operations. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or in future periods.

9. Contingencies

The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and a party to various other legal proceedings, in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered in whole or in part by insurance.

New Idria Mercury Mine

Effective October 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) added the New Idria Mercury Mine site located near Hollister, California to the Superfund National Priorities List because of alleged contaminants discharged to California waterways. The New Idria Quicksilver Mining Company, founded in 1936, and later renamed the New Idria Mining & Chemical Company ("NIMCC") owned and/or operated the New Idria Mine through 1976. In 1981 NIMCC, after another name change, was merged into Buckhorn Metal Products Inc. which was subsequently acquired by Myers Industries in 1987. The EPA contends that past mining operations have resulted in mercury contamination and acid mine drainage at the mine site, in the San Carlos Creek, Silver Creek and a portion of Panoche Creek, and that other downstream locations may also be impacted.

In September 2015, a subsidiary of the Company, Buckhorn, Inc. (“Buckhorn”) received a notice letter and related documents from EPA (the “Notice Letter”) formally informing Buckhorn that it considers it to be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site. As a result of this Notice Letter, Buckhorn and the Company expect to engage in negotiations with EPA with respect to a draft Administrative Order proposed by EPA for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the site to determine the extent of remediation necessary and the screening of alternatives. The Company recognized an expense of $1.9 million, on an undiscounted basis, in 2011 related to performing a RI/FS. As part of the Notice Letter, EPA also made a claim for approximately $1.6 million in past costs for actions it claims it has taken in connection with the New Idria Mercury Mine site since 1993. These costs include approximately $0.5 million for an interim removal project at the New Idria Mercury Mine site completed by the EPA in November 2011. It is expected this removal action will be part of the final remediation strategy for the site. The Company currently expects to challenge EPA's past cost claims. The Company reserved an additional $1.3 million in 2015 related to the EPA claim, reflected as an increase in general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total payments of approximately $1.2 million have been made and charged against the reserve classified in Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position, which brings the total accrued balance related to this matter to $2.0 million at December 31, 2015. As negotiations with the EPA proceed with respect to the RI/FS, it is possible that adjustments to the aforementioned reserves will be necessary to reflect new information. Estimates of the Company’s liability are based on current facts, laws, regulations and technology. Estimates of the Company’s environmental liabilities are further subject to uncertainties regarding the negotiations with EPA, the nature and extent of site contamination, the range of remediation alternatives available, evolving remediation standards, imprecise engineering evaluation and cost estimates, the extent of remedial actions that may be required, the number and financial condition of other PRPs that may be named as well as the extent of their responsibility for the remediation, and the availability of insurance coverage for these expenses. At this time, we have not accrued for remediation costs in connection with this site as we are unable to estimate the liability, given the circumstances referred to above, including the fact the final remediation strategy has not yet been determined.

Other

Buckhorn and Schoeller Arca Systems, Inc. (“SAS”) were plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Orbis Corp. and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (“Orbis”) for alleged breach by Orbis of an exclusive patent license agreement from SAS to Buckhorn. SAS is an affiliate of Schoeller Arca Systems Services B.V. (“SASS B.V.”), a Dutch company. SAS manufactures and sells plastic returnable packaging systems for material handling. In the course of the litigation, it was discovered that SAS had given a patent license agreement to a predecessor of Orbis that pre-dated the one that SAS sold to Buckhorn. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Orbis, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs to Orbis in the amount of $3.1 million, plus interest and costs.

In May 2014, Orbis made demand to SAS that SAS pay the judgment in full, and subsequently in July 2014, Orbis made the same demand to Buckhorn. Buckhorn believed it was not responsible for any of the judgment because it was not a party to the Orbis license. Despite this belief, the Company recorded expense of $3.0 million during the third quarter of 2014 for the entire amount of the unpaid judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against Buckhorn on July 2, 2015, and found that Buckhorn was not liable to Orbis for any portion of the judgment entered in favor of Orbis. Accordingly, Myers reversed the accrual of $3.0 million during 2015, which was reflected as a reduction of general and administrative expenses. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Orbis' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. All opportunities for Orbis to appeal have expired. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has now released Buckhorn’s appellate bond. Buckhorn is also pursuing legal action against SAS and SASS B.V. for fraudulently selling an exclusive patent license they could not sell and related claims. That case is now pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2014, SASS B.V. informed Buckhorn that SAS may not have the financial ability to pay any judgment against it and provided financial statements to Buckhorn indicating SAS was in financial distress while SASS B.V. was financially stable. Given the uncertainty of SAS’s financial status, it is not known at this time what the likelihood of recovering from SAS (or SASS B.V.) would be in the event that there is a favorable outcome for Buckhorn in the New York court.

When management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can reasonably be estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range, and no point within the range is more probable of occurrence than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters will be assessed and the estimates will be revised, if necessary.

Based on current available information, management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or overall trends in our results of operations. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations of the period in which the ruling occurs, or in future periods.