SUPREME COURT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS

 INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST EMPLOYERS

The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified that Ohio employers are not liable for workplace injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system unless the employee proves that the employer acted with “specific intent to injure” the employee.  In Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products, Co., decided March 23, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code Section 2745.01, the “intentional torts” statute.  That statute makes it extremely difficult for an employee to prove an intentional tort because the employee must prove that the employer had specific intent to injure.  The only exception concerns “the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance.”  However, even in those cases, such proof only creates a “rebuttable presumption” that the employer intended to injure the employee. 

This decision is significant because it restores the employer/employee compromise inherent in the 1912 Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that created the Ohio workers’ compensation law.  Prior to this amendment, employees who were injured on the job had to bring a common law action against their employer and prove that the employer was at fault for the injury.  This proved very difficult because the employer had many powerful common law defenses.  However, a successful employee would often receive significant money damages.  Neither side was very happy with this system because many deserving employees were not given assistance and many employers were faced with unknown future liabilities.  The 1912 amendment was a compromise whereby an employee received a certain and speedy recovery for his workplace injuries in exchange for granting limited liability to the employer.  

However, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Ohio Supreme Court carved out an exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity by allowing actions for employer common law intentional tort.  Under these decisions, notably the case of Fyffe v. Jenos, an employer could be found liable for an intentional tort if the employee proved that the employer had knowledge of the existence of a dangerous process or condition, that harm to the employee was a substantial certainty and the employer required the employee to perform the dangerous task.  The Fyffe standard greatly expanded potential liability and disrupted the compromise forged nearly 100 years ago. 

The Kaminski decision effectively restores the 1912 compromise and upholds Revised Code Section 2745.01, which requires that employees who file intentional tort claims must prove that their employer had “specific intent to injure.”  However, if the employee proves that he or she was injured because the employer deliberately removed “an equipment safety guard” or deliberately misrepresented a “toxic or hazardous substance,” a rebuttable presumption is created that the employer intended injury.  Still, the employer may then present evidence to rebut this presumption. 

This decision will reduce much, but not all, intentional tort claims.  A word of advice – to protect yourself from an intentional tort action, do not remove safety guards from equipment and always inform your employees of the dangers of handling toxic and hazardous substances.