Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Statute Regarding Workplace Intentional Torts
A recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling upheld the onerous requirements established for workplace intentional torts, leaving many workers with limited recourse following serious injuries.

April 08, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Statute Regarding Workplace Intentional Torts

Ohio has enacted no-fault workers' compensation laws: regardless of fault, employees who are injured on the job may file claims and collect benefits through an administrative process. Injured workers do not have to undertake the time and expense of litigation to seek compensation.

In exchange, employees generally give up the right to sue their employers. However, beginning in the 1980s, the Ohio courts carved out an exception to this rule known as a "workplace intentional tort." In 2005, the General Assembly enacted a statute significantly more burdensome for injured workers than the standards previously used by the courts.

The statute has been challenged in a number of cases and on various grounds, including recently in Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.

The Common Law "Intentional Tort"

Since 1982, Ohio courts have established an exception to the general rule that employees may not sue employers for workplace injuries. The common law rule was clarified in Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc., in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that injured workers may pursue an "intentional tort" lawsuit against their employer if all of the following were true:
-The employer had knowledge of a dangerous workplace practice or condition
-The employer knew that the practice or condition was so dangerous that exposing a worker to it created a "substantial certainty" of injury
-Under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, the employer exposed the worker to the dangerous practice or condition

Despite the phrase "intentional tort," the employer did not actually have to intend subjectively for the harm to occur. The Fyffe court noted that in some instances, the probability of harm is so great that an employer knows that injury is certain or substantially certain to occur. If, in these instances, the employer nevertheless proceeds or directs the employee to proceed, then the employer should be treated as though he intended the injury to occur.

The Statutory "Intentional Tort"

In 2005, the legislature enacted R.C. 2745.01, which precludes employer liability unless the employee can show that the employer acted with the intent to injure or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur. The statute defines "substantially certain" to mean that the employer must have acted with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition or death.

Thus, substantial certainty under the statute has, by definition, been subsumed into the "intent to injure" That is, the statute now requires the employee to show that the employer acted "with the intent to injure" or "with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, disease, condition or death."

Ohio Supreme Court Case

In Kaminski, employee Rose Kaminski, was injured on the job when a five foot tall, 800-pound coil fell on her legs. Kaminski and a coworker were attempting to change a steel coil in a press. The coworker bumped the coil with the forklift and Kaminski, who was on the floor to steady the coil, could not control it. She was injured when it fell onto her legs and feet.

Kaminski applied for and received workers' compensation benefits. In addition, she brought a case against her employer, Metal & Wire Products Co.

Kaminski filed a lawsuit in district court, asserting that Metal & Wire committed an intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01. Additionally, Kaminski claimed that R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional, stating that the legislature was without authority to modify the common law regarding workplace intentional torts. Therefore, she asked the court to consider her claim under the Ohio common law standard.

Metal & Wire asked the court to decide, without going to trial, the issue of the constitutionality of the statute. After the court found the statute constitutional, Metal & Wire moved for summary judgment on Kaminski's complaint. The employer asked the court to rule that Kaminski had not stated a claim because she could not meet the statutory requirement that the employer intended to injure Kaminski.

The district court found the statute constitutional and granted summary judgment to Metal & Wire. Kaminski appealed to the 7th District Court of Appeals; the appellate court found the statute unconstitutional, stating that the legislature did not have the authority, under the Ohio constitution, to enact R.C. 2734.01 and thereby modify the common law standard.

Metal & Wire appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held 6-1 that the General Assembly did not exceed its authority in enacting R.C. 2745.01.

What It Means to Employees

In his dissent in the Kaminski case, Justice Pfeifer wrote that "General Assembly has found a court that agrees with it: workers have no constitutionally protected right to seek redress for injuries suffered from their employer's intentional torts." While this may be an overstatement, the threshold injured workers must meet in order to recover in court is undoubtedly elevated over the common law standard.

If you have been injured on the job, a knowledgeable attorney can help you file your administrative claim for benefits and also advise you whether you may be able to meet this steep burden should you decide to pursue a court action as well.

Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR