Articles and Newsletters

Client Alert from the Labor and Employment Group - April 2010

The Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Limiting

Intentional Tort Lawsuits

by Michael J. Spisak and Michael Schmeltzer

The Ohio Supreme Court recently upheld a 2005 statute limiting the ability of employees to sue their employers for workplace "intentional torts." The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued its decision on the issue in Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co. and its companion case Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, and found the statute to be constitutional. Enacted in 2005, the current version of R.C. 2745.01 provides that an injured worker pursuing an intentional tort lawsuit against the employers must prove the employer intended to injure the worker or acted with the belief that injury was "substantially certain" to occur. In order to prove a "substantial certainty" claim, the statute requires the injured worker to prove that the employer acted "with a deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, or condition or death." The Court explained the two most important reasons for the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy are "first, to maintain the balance of sacrifices between employer and employee in the substitution of no-fault liability for tort liability and, second, to minimize litigation, even litigation of undoubted merit."

Dating back to 1912, Ohio's "no-fault" workers' compensation system covers most workplace injuries. Under workers' compensation law, workers injured in the course and scope of their job duties generally cannot sue their employers to recover damages. Instead, employers are required to pay into an insurance fund from which injured workers may recover their medical expenses, lost time, and other damages flowing from their workplace injuries - regardless of who was at fault.

However, Ohio courts established precedent in the 1980s enabling employees to sue their employers under common law if they were injured by their employers' intentional tort. Over the years the Supreme Court refined the definition of an employment intentional tort, ultimately determining that acts creating a "high risk" of harm could rise to the level of substantial certainty, and thus create an issue of fact as to whether the employer committed an intentional tort. In other words, recklessness could be equated to an intentional tort. Since that time, the legislature has made several attempts to enact laws aimed at limiting the ability of employees to bring intentional tort lawsuits against their employers. Twice, the Ohio Supreme Court has struck down the legislation, holding it to be unconstitutional.

In response to the Supreme Court's rulings that allowed such claims, the legislature enacted the current version of R.C. 2745.01 which mandates that employees prove that their employers acted with "deliberate intent" to cause their injuries. This is a much more stringent standard than the common law test previously recognized by Ohio courts. As was expected, the Plaintiff's bar again challenged the statute as unconstitutional.

The information in this Client Alert is a summary of often complex legal issues and may not cover all of the "fine points" of a specific situation or court jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not intended to be legal advice, which should always be obtained in consultation with an attorney. The lawyers in Walter & Haverfield's Labor and Employment Law Group will be pleased to assist with any questions about this new law.