Intentional Tort: Miscellaneous
Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.
The term “equipment safety guard” in R.C. 2745.01(C) refers to a device designed to shield an operator from injury and the term “deliberate removal” refers to an employer’s deliberate decision to eliminate the safety guard.
Vote: 4-1, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton
Insurance policy sold to employer which excludes acts committed with deliberate intent to injure employee does not provide coverage for employment intentional tort which, by its nature, requires finding that act occurred with intent to injure.
Vote: 3-2, 2 concur in syllabus and judgment only
Opinion by: French
Employer entitled to summary judgment on intentional tort claim since worker failed to prove that employer had deliberately removed safety guard.
Vote: 3-2, 1 concurs in judgment only, 1 concurs in judgment only and partially joins dissent
Opinion by: O’Donnell
U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act pre-empts state law claim for intentional tort.
Vote: 5-0, 2 concur in part and dissent in part
Opinion by: Lanzinger