Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc.
35 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 944, 2012 Ohio 5685, 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio R.C. 2745.01, an employee's intentional tort claim against an employer requires proof that the employer acted with a deliberate intent to cause injury. The statutory definition of "substantially certain" equates to this specific intent standard, thereby superseding the broader common-law interpretation.
Facts:
- After a back injury, Bruce R. Houdek returned to work at ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc. on light-duty assignment relabeling inventory on warehouse racks.
- The relabeling work required Houdek to be in the same narrow, dimly lit aisles where employees operated sideloaders to retrieve merchandise.
- A sideloader operator, George Krajacic, expressed concern to plant manager Joseph Matras about working in aisles where relabeling was occurring, but Matras indicated it was not necessary to change procedures.
- ThyssenKrupp did not provide safety equipment such as reflective vests, orange safety cones, or expandable gates to block off aisles where employees were working on foot.
- Houdek informed Krajacic that he would be working in the aisle between racks A and B.
- Several hours later, Krajacic forgot Houdek was in the aisle and drove the sideloader down the dead-end aisle.
- The sideloader pinned Houdek against a scissor lift, causing severe injuries to his leg and ankle.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce R. Houdek sued his employer, ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., in an Ohio trial court, alleging an employer intentional tort.
- ThyssenKrupp filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ThyssenKrupp.
- Houdek, as appellant, appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding an issue of fact under a broader interpretation of the governing statute.
- ThyssenKrupp, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Ohio R.C. 2745.01 require an employee bringing an intentional tort claim against an employer to prove that the employer acted with a deliberate intent to cause injury, thereby eliminating the common law's broader 'substantial certainty' test?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Donnell, J.
Yes. R.C. 2745.01 limits claims against employers for intentional torts to circumstances demonstrating a deliberate intent to cause injury. While R.C. 2745.01(A) permits liability if an injury was 'substantially certain to occur,' R.C. 2745.01(B) statutorily defines 'substantially certain' to mean that an employer acts 'with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury.' The court rejected the appellate court's theory that this definition was a scrivener's error, holding that the General Assembly's clear intent was to curtail the common-law cause of action and require proof of specific intent to injure. The court found no evidence that ThyssenKrupp deliberately intended to injure Houdek; rather, his injuries were the result of a tragic accident. The rebuttable presumption for removing a safety guard under subsection (C) does not apply because failing to provide items like cones or vests is not equivalent to the 'deliberate removal' of an existing safety guard.
Dissenting - Pfeifer, J.
No. The majority misinterprets the statute and overstates its effect on intentional tort claims. R.C. 2745.01(A) provides two independent paths to liability: (1) acting with intent to injure, or (2) acting with the belief that injury is substantially certain to occur. The narrow definition in (B) only applies to the second path. An employer's 'intent to injure' under the first path can and should be inferred from the facts and circumstances, such as knowingly sending an employee into a highly dangerous situation without precautions, as ThyssenKrupp did here. Additionally, the failure to deploy available safety equipment like safety cones should be construed as the 'deliberate removal' of a safety guard under R.C. 2745.01(C), which creates a presumption of intent. The majority's holding effectively eliminates any meaningful remedy for employees injured by an employer's egregious conduct, short of securing a confession.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the bar for employees seeking to sue their employers for intentional torts in Ohio, moving such claims outside the exclusive remedy of the workers' compensation system. By upholding the legislature's statutory redefinition of 'substantially certain' to mean 'deliberate intent to injure,' the court effectively eliminated the common law's more lenient objective standard from Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. This ruling confirms the General Assembly's power to statutorily override common law tort standards. Consequently, future plaintiffs must present evidence of an employer's subjective, specific intent to harm an employee, a standard that is exceptionally difficult to meet and will likely limit successful claims to the most egregious and unambiguous cases.
