Court Rulings

Workers' compensation—Mandamus—Violations of specific safety requirements ("VSSRs")—Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1) (requiring that fall-protection gear be provided to employees exposed to hazards of falling)—Employer failed to establish that Industrial Commission failed to perform a legal duty or abused its discretion in granting claimant's application for VSSR award for violation of Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1)—Some evidence supports commission's finding that claimant was not assisting in installation of fall-protection system when he fell—Court of appeals' judgment denying writ affirmed.

The plaintiffs, victims of criminal computer hacking by the defendant L, appealed from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of L's parent, the defendant J. The plaintiffs claimed that the court improperly granted summary judgment because J had voluntarily assumed a duty of care to them to monitor and supervise L's Internet usage at J's home or, in the alternative, J owed a general duty of care arising from her affirmative conduct, and J failed to prevent L, an adult, from hacking into the plaintiffs' social media accounts to obtain and post on the Internet photographs of them in the nude. Held: The trial court properly rendered summary judgment for J on the plaintiffs' claims sounding in negligence, in which they alleged that J had voluntarily assumed a duty of care to them, as this court could not conclude that a reasonable person in J's position could foresee that the mere act of providing a computer or Internet service to an adult child would result in the kind of harm the plaintiffs alleged, and, although J had made gratuitous, unsolicited email statements to the police representing what she had done and was intending to do to prevent future hacking attempts by L, there was no genuine issue of material fact that J did not learn that L had stolen the plaintiffs' photographs and posted them online until after that conduct had ceased. Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim, public policy considerations, under the circumstances at issue, did not compel the conclusion that J's actions gave rise to a duty of care to the plaintiffs, as the parties' normal expectations weighed against establishing such a duty, any benefit that might accrue from recognizing a public policy of encouraging parents to monitor their adult children's Internet use could not be counterbalanced by the practical difficulties inherent in taking on such a task, the recognition of such a legal duty would increase litigation, and the decisions of courts in other jurisdict

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgments denying his applica- tion to vacate an arbitration award and granting the defendants' application to confirm that same award, which had been issued in connection with an employment dispute. The award was issued in favor of the defendant W Co., the plaintiff's former employer, and the defendant B, a member of W Co.'s board of managers. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly failed to vacate the award because the arbitrator exceeded the scope of the arbitration submission and acted in manifest disregard of the law in awarding attorney's fees and costs to the defendants. Held: The plaintiff's failure to include the trial court docket number of the defen- dants' application to confirm the arbitration award on his appeal form did not render his appeal moot, as the defendants provided no authority indicat- ing that a party's failure to list all of the trial court docket numbers on an appeal form in accordance with the rule of practice (§ 61-7 (a) (1)) deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appeal form filed by the plaintiff provided notice to the defendants that the plaintiff was challeng- ing the propriety of both the judgment denying his application to vacate the award and the judgment granting the defendants' application to confirm the award. The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly failed to vacate the arbitration award because the arbitrator both exceeded the scope of the arbitration submission and acted in manifest disregard of the law in awarding attorney's fees and costs to the defendants, as the plain language of the arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment agreement provided that the prevailing party was entitled to receive an award of attor- ney's fees and costs in addition to all other damages to which such party was entitled, the alleged ambiguity in the arbitration clause regarding the arbitrator's ability to awa