Case Title: Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc.

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2840

Docket Number: 20010947

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as  Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 532, 2002-Ohio-2840.] 
 
 
MILLER, APPELLANT, v. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 532, 2002-Ohio-2840.] 
Workers’ compensation — Proof required to establish that an employer has 
committed an intentional tort against an employee — Court of appeals’ 
judgment reversed on authority of Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. and cause 
remanded to trial court for further proceedings. 
(No. 2001-0947 — Submitted May 8, 2002 — Decided June 26, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20149. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 
Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, and the cause is 
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶2} 
When the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ruhlin 
Construction, it cited and applied Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 
570 N.E.2d 1108, as the controlling law governing the elements of an employer 
intentional tort claim.  In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals 
likewise applied Fyffe in its analysis.  Given that both lower courts relied on 
Fyffe, the majority’s summary reversal “on the authority of Fyffe” is cryptically 
unhelpful to the trial court on remand.  Although the trial court will certainly infer 
from today’s decision that it misapplied the relevant precedent, it is left with no 
explanation of how it did so. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
In any event, I find no basis for reversal in this case and would 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion.  
On the record before us, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in 
favor of Ruhlin Construction.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Perantinides & Nolan Co., L.P.A., Paul G. Perantinides and Antonios P. 
Tsarouhas, for appellant. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Orville L. Reed III and A. 
Elizabeth Cargle, for appellee. 
__________________