LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Construing the state’s intentional tort exception to exclusivity, an Ohio appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s order grant summary judgment to an employer in a civil action filed by the widow of a deceased worker killed when scaffolding upon which he was working collapsed. The decedent and two other workers were brick and stone veneers on the exterior of a building. They completed a phase of the work and, thinking that they needed to keep busy, proceeded to another spot on the building. It was undisputed that they had not been told to move to the next area of work and the scaffolding there was not secured to the building. The appellate court, citing a line of other cases, indicated that while there conflicting evidence as to whether the employer had been negligent, or even reckless, there was no issue of genuine fact as to whether there was a genuine intent to harm the decedent. Summary judgment was appropriate.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Johnson v. International Masonry, Inc., 2013 Ohio 2749, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2762 (July 8, 2013) [2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2762 (July 8, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04 [103.04]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site