Skip to main content

Henzerling v. Environmental Ents., Inc.

Ohio Ct. App.May 5, 2017No. NO. C–160232
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Per Curiam
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Trial court properly granted summary judgment for employer in intentional tort case brought by employee's estate, finding no deliberate intent to harm and that failure to require submersion tank use did not constitute deliberate removal of safety equipment under Ohio law.

Excerpt

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE - INTENTIONAL TORT - R.C. 2745.01 - SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in an intentional-tort case brought by its employee's estate: R.C. 2745.01(C)'s rebuttable presumption did not apply because the employer's failure to require the employee to use a submersion tank before cutting away metal casings on air filters was not tantamount to the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard where the submersion tank was not an equipment safety guard, and there was otherwise no issue of fact as to whether the employer had deliberately intended to harm its employee.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** An employee at Environmental Enterprises died in a workplace accident while cutting metal casings on air filters. The worker's family sued the company, claiming the employer intentionally harmed their loved one by failing to require the use of a submersion tank, which would have made the work safer. Under Ohio law, employees can sometimes sue their employers for intentional harm beyond what workers' compensation covers. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio appeals court sided with the employer. The court ruled that failing to require the submersion tank was not the same as deliberately removing safety equipment or intentionally trying to harm the employee. The judges found no evidence that the company acted with deliberate intent to injure the worker, which is required under Ohio's intentional tort law. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows how difficult it can be for workers or their families to win intentional tort cases against employers in Ohio. Simply proving that an employer failed to provide or require certain safety measures isn't enough – you must show the employer deliberately intended to cause harm. Workers should understand that most workplace injury cases will be handled through workers' compensation rather than personal injury lawsuits.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.