Opinion ID: 2691688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Modern Case Law Establishing the Elements

Text: of a Common-Law Employer Intentional Tort {¶ 21} Despite the emergence and development of the concept that recovery within the workers’ compensation system was to be the exclusive remedy for employee injury in the workplace, this court in Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 608, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572, devised an exception. Blankenship’s syllabus held that “[a]n employee is not precluded by Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, or by R.C. 4123.74[3]    from enforcing his common law remedies against his employer for an intentional tort.” {¶ 22} In Blankenship, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit, which alleged that the employer, a manufacturer of chemicals, had committed an intentional tort by exposing the plaintiffs to dangerous chemicals. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal by reasoning that “the purpose of Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution was to abolish civil actions by employees against complying employers for work-related injuries.” Thus, courts lack jurisdiction over such claims. “To hold otherwise 3. {¶ a} R.C. 4123.74 was amended in 1959 to provide that “[e]mployers who comply with section 4123.35 of the Revised Code [regarding payments into the state insurance fund] shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for any injury, or occupational disease, or bodily condition, received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment, or for any death resulting from such injury, occupational disease, or bodily condition    whether or not    compensable under sections 4123.01 to 4123.94, inclusive, of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) 128 Ohio Laws 1334. {¶ b} The phrase emphasized above, an important underlying basis for the decision in Blankenship, was inserted into R.C. 4123.74 in apparent response to decisions such as Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp. (1951), 156 Ohio St. 295, 46 O.O. 172, 102 N.E.2d 444, which had held that G.C. 1465-70, 118 Ohio Laws 422, 426, foreclosed a common-law action against an employer even when an injury fell totally outside the purview of the Workers’ Compensation Act. See Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 624, 630, 576 N.E.2d 722 (remarking that the addition of the new language “effectively reinstated common-law redress where an injury was sustained neither in the course of nor arising out of the employment”). {¶ c} Current R.C. 4123.74 is “substantially similar” to the statutory version in effect when Blankenship was decided. Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc., 117 Ohio St.3d 496, 2008-Ohio937, 885 N.E.2d 204, ¶ 15, fn. 3. 8 January Term, 2010 would clearly frustrate the enabling language of Art. II, Section 35    and the legislative scheme embodied in R.C. 4123.74   .” Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc. (Jan. 14, 1981), Hamilton App. No. C-790768, 1981 WL 9561,  5. {¶ 23} In reversing the dismissal, this court stated that “where an employee asserts in his complaint a claim for damages based on an intentional tort, ‘   the substance of the claim is not an “injury    received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment” within the meaning of R.C. 4123.74.’ ” Blankenship, 69 Ohio St.2d at 613, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572, quoting Delamotte v. Midland Ross Corp. (1978), 64 Ohio App.2d 159, 161, 18 O.O.3d 117, 411 N.E.2d 814. This court further stated, “Since an employer’s intentional conduct does not arise out of employment, R.C. 4123.74 does not bestow upon employers immunity from civil liability for their intentional torts and an employee may resort to a civil suit for damages.” 69 Ohio St.2d at 613, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572. Thus, the Blankenship court declared that workers’ compensation is not always the exclusive remedy for certain intentional torts. It reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings without considering the merits of the plaintiffs’ intentional-tort claims. Id. at 615-616, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572.4 4. Two justices who did not join the majority opinion and who wrote separately in Blankenship in essence did not disagree with the general validity of the court’s syllabus holding. See id. at 620621, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572 (Locher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (agreeing with the syllabus “as an abstract proposition of law” in that “intentional torts fall outside the workers’ compensation scheme,” but stating that “[w]e should not circumvent the statutory framework for workers’ compensation merely because a known risk existed. We should demand a virtual certainty”); id. at 620-621, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572 (Holmes, J., dissenting) (opining that the syllabus “states broadly what might be considered as accurate law” regarding an employee’s right to bring an intentional tort suit and that the syllabus established a “basic valid premise,” but strongly denying that any intentional or malicious tort had been alleged given the facts of the case, so that dismissal of the complaint was appropriate). 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 24} Notably, this court in Blankenship did not consider Section 35, Article II, beyond observing that it does not “expressly extend the grant of immunity to actions alleging intentional tortious conduct by employers against their employees.” Id. at 612, 23 O.O.3d 504, 433 N.E.2d 572. See also id. at the syllabus. {¶ 25} In Jones v. VIP Dev. Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 90, 95, 15 OBR 246, 472 N.E.2d 1046, this court followed up on Blankenship by rejecting the proposition that an employer’s “specific intent to injure is necessary to a finding of intentional misconduct.” Relying on Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5th Ed.1984) 35-36, Section 8, and 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 15, Section 8A, the Jones court formulated a broadened definition of “intent.” That definition focused not just on the specific consequences that an actor desires but also on those consequences that an actor believes are substantially certain to result from the actor’s conduct. The court held at paragraph one of the syllabus: “An intentional tort is an act committed with the intent to injure another, or committed with the belief that such injury is substantially certain to occur.” The court then applied this holding to the facts of three different cases accepted for review and resolved all three in favor of employees pursuing recovery for alleged employer intentional torts. Id. at 95-98, 15 OBR 246, 472 N.E.2d 1046. {¶ 26} The Jones court also made two more noteworthy holdings. The court held at paragraph two of the syllabus that “[t]he receipt of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude an employee or his representative from pursuing a common-law action for damages against his employer for an intentional tort.” The court held at paragraph three of the syllabus that “[a]n employer who has been held liable for an intentional tort is not entitled to a setoff 10 January Term, 2010 of the award in the amount of workers’ compensation benefits received by the employee or his representative.”5 {¶ 27} In the wake of Blankenship and Jones, the General Assembly enacted former R.C. 4121.80 in Am.Sub.S.B. No. 307, 141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 733-737, effective August 22, 1986. Former R.C. 4121.80(G)(1) defined “substantially certain” as requiring that an employer act “with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer injury, disease, condition, or death.” 141 Ohio Laws, id., at 736. {¶ 28} Having held that former R.C. 4121.80 did not apply to the case before it,6 this court in Van Fossen endeavored to clarify the standards established in Jones for a common-law intentional tort. The court explained that trial courts had misconstrued the phrase “substantially certain to occur,” essentially with the 5. {¶ a} Justice William B. Brown, the author of the majority opinion in Blankenship, was one of