Case Title: Leichty v. Yoder Mfg., Inc.

Citation: 2001-Ohio-143

Docket Number: 20001160

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Goodin v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 92 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2001-Ohio-
143.] 
 
 
 
GOODIN, APPELLANT, v. COLUMBIA GAS OF OHIO, INC., APPELLEE, ET AL. 
LIECHTY, EXR., APPELLANT, v. YODER MANUFACTURING, INC. ET AL.; ITT 
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Goodin v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 1214.] 
Appeals dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(Nos. 00-769 and 00-1160 — Submitted April 4, 2001 at the Lawrence County 
Session — Decided July 5, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Athens County, No. 99CA30. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 75654. 
__________________ 
 
The causes are dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 
allowed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  I disagree that this appeal was improvidently 
allowed.  The decision of the trial court, upheld by the court of appeals, 
negatively impacts our tradition of trial by jury.  In my view, issues of fact 
appropriate for a jury’s determination were dealt with summarily by the trial 
judge.  Specifically, genuine issues of fact existed as to two of the three prongs of 
the test establishing intent in intentional workplace torts, as enunciated in Fyffe v. 
Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108.  Here, reasonable minds 
could have concluded that the employer, through its agents, knew that appellant’s 
decedent was substantially certain to be harmed due to a dangerous work-related 
procedure and that the employer, despite that knowledge, required appellant’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
decedent to perform that dangerous task.  We should have dealt with the case on 
the merits and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Colley, Shroyer & Abraham Co., L.P.A., Michael F. Colley, Daniel N. 
Abraham and David K. Frank, for appellant, in case No. 00-769. 
 
Stephen L. Hebenstreit and Andrew J. Sonderman, for appellee, in case 
No. 00-769. 
 
Ray & Alton, L.L.P., and Frank A. Ray, urging reversal for amicus curiae, 
Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, in case No. 00-769. 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio AFL-CIO, in case No. 00-769. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., and Scott A. Richardson, 
urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in 
case No. 00-769. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Robert A. Minor and Robin R. 
Obetz, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Self-Insurers’ Association, in 
case No. 00-769. 
 
Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers; The Landskroner Law 
Firm, Ltd., and Jack Landskroner, for appellant, in case No. 00-1160. 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Damond R. Mace and Adam R. Fox, 
for appellee, in case No. 00-1160. 
 
Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A., James B. Hochman and Cinamon S. 
Houston, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Dayton Springfield Miami Valley 
AFL-CIO, Regional Labor Council, in case No. 00-1160. 
 
Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein; Weisman, 
Goldberg & Weisman Co., L.P.A., R. Eric Kennedy and Henry W. Chamberlain; 
January Term, 2001 
3 
The Okey Law Firm, L.P.A., and Mark D. Okey, for amicus curiae, in case No. 
00-1160. 
__________________