Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to submit a workplace intentional-tort claim to the jury under the three-part substantial-certainty test from Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. The court held that evidence of the employer’s policies and expectations could support an inference that the employee was required to engage in the dangerous task or be present in the hazardous area. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for consideration of the remaining Fyffe elements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find the third element of the Fyffe workplace-intentional-tort test—that the employer, through its actions or policies, required the employee to perform the dangerous task or placed him in the dangerous work environment.
- Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the employer when reasonable minds could differ based on the evidence and reasonable inferences.
- Whether the case should be remanded for the court of appeals to address the remaining issues concerning the first two elements of the Fyffe test.
Holdings
- An employee need not show that the employer expressly ordered him to engage in the dangerous task. The third Fyffe element may be satisfied by evidence raising an inference that the employer, through its actions, policies, or conditions of employment, required or expected the employee to engage in the dangerous task or placed the employee in the dangerous environment.
- The directed verdict was improper because substantial competent evidence permitted reasonable minds to differ on whether Drainage Products required Gibson to engage in or be exposed to the dangerous task.
- The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to that court for consideration of the remaining assignments of error, including the sufficiency of the evidence on the first two Fyffe elements.
Key quotations
“in order to establish ‘intent’ for the purpose of proving the existence of an intentional tort committed by an employer against his employee, the following must be demonstrated: (1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty; and (3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task.” (175)
“Thus, for purposes of surviving a motion for directed verdict, it is not necessary for an employee to show that the employer expressly ordered the employee to engage in the dangerous task.” (177)
“Instead, the third element of the Fyffe test can be satisfied by presenting evidence that raises an inference that the employer, through its actions and policies, required the employee to engage in that dangerous task.” (177)
Factual background
Mike Gibson, an employee of Drainage Products, Inc., was fatally burned when hot molten plastic was discharged from an extruder-line screen changer during a repair operation. The extruder had been shut down and some nearby heaters turned off, but heaters near the pipe leading to the die remained on. Gibson approached the repair area to offer assistance, consistent with company policies and expectations that employees seek additional work and assist coworkers after completing assigned duties.
Procedural history
Susan Gibson filed an intentional-tort action against Drainage Products after Mike Gibson suffered fatal burns in a manufacturing accident. The trial court denied summary judgment but granted the employer's Civ.R. 50(A) motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case. The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that the evidence did not establish the third element of the Fyffe substantial-certainty test. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining assignments of error, including the first two Fyffe elements.
Remand instructions
Remand to the court of appeals for further proceedings, including consideration of the appellant's remaining assignments of error and whether the evidence was sufficient to survive a directed verdict on the first two elements of the Fyffe test.