The Intentional Tort Doctrine in Ohio allows injured workers to file personal injury suits against their employers under a theory of “intentional tort,” essentially defined as employer knowledge of a dangerous workplace process, procedure, machinery, instrumentality or condition leading to a “substantial certainty” of injury or illness.
In Ohio, personal injury suits arising out of workplace accidents and exposures are routinely heard by a jury to determine, along with employer knowledge, whether a given injury or illness was “substantially certain” to occur.
According to Ohio Revised Code Section 2745.01(B) “Substantial Certainty” means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.
The intent of the “substantial certainty” definition is and attempt to limit intentional tort cases to those cases where there is an actual, deliberate intent to injure the employee.
The law provides that there is a “rebuttable presumption” of the required “intent to injure” if there is a “deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance.”
Additionally, an Intentional Tort permits the injured worker to file an independent tort action against the Employer to seek compensation and punitive damage compensation in seperate and apart from the BWC claim. These claims are filed in the Court of Common Pleas in the jurisdiction in which the intentional tort took place.
On March 23, 2010, Ohio Supreme Court issued two companion decisions ruling that Ohio Revised Code Section 2754.01, which limits an employee’s ability to sue an employer for an intentional tort, did not violate the Ohio Constitution.
The statute, passed in 2005, provides that an employer is immune from liability when sued by employees or their dependent survivors for an intentional injury unless the plaintiff proves that the employer acted with the “intent to injure the employee” or “with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.” The statute defines the phrase “substantially certain” as meaning that “an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.” The statute further provides that an employer’s deliberate removal of equipment safety guards or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a rebuttable presumption that these actions were committed with the intent to injure another.
In Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Company, 2010-Ohio-1027, the Ohio Supreme Court found that R.C. §2745.01 did not violate Sections 34 (authorizing employment workplace laws) and 35 (authorizing workers’ compensation laws) of Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that those provisions granted the General Assembly broad authority to enact legislation and did not prohibit limitations on employer intentional torts. The Court further explained that because R.C. §2745.01 merely limits, but does not eliminate, an employee’s ability to sue an employer for intentional tort, it is constitutional.
In Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, LLC, 2010-Ohio-1029, the Ohio Supreme Court further established the constitutional validity of R.C. §2745.01. Responding to issues referred to it by a federal court, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the statute does not on its face violate a number of the Ohio Constitution’s provisions including those concerning access to the courts, the right to a jury trial, and equal protection under the law. Notably, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that while R.C. §2745.01 does not eliminate the common-law cause of action for an employer intentional tort, it does significantly limit an employee’s ability to bring such an action.
Thus, for the first time in almost 30 years, the Ohio Supreme Court has denied a challenge to limits on the employer intentional tort. As a result, employers face reduced risk that an employee can successfully seek to recover for workplace injuries and/or occupational diseases outside the limits of the workers’ compensation system. Most importantly, it is now easier for employers to defend against meritless intentional tort lawsuits and the sizeable damage awards or settlements that flow from them.
Call Gruhin & Gruhin to see if your injury situation rises to the standard of an intentional tort claim.
Downloadable Guide
DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE COPY OF MIKE'S Ohio Workers' Comp Guide
