2018 Ohio 1505
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Houston and Morales, co-employees at Hose Master, collided in Morales’s car on the employer’s parking lot while each was on a lunch break; Houston was injured.
- Houston sued Morales for tort damages in common pleas court.
- Morales moved for summary judgment asserting statutory fellow-employee immunity under R.C. 4123.741 because Houston’s injury was compensable under the workers’ compensation statutes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Morales, concluding the fellow-employee immunity statute applied.
- Houston appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) Morales violated judicial estoppel, (2) collateral estoppel barred Morales from asserting fellow-employee immunity, and (3) Morales was not a fellow servant at the time of the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Morales from asserting fellow-employee immunity | Houston: Morales previously pursued uninsured-motorist benefits from his insurer, an inconsistent position that should be estopped | Morales: UM claim against insurer is not a court proceeding under oath and thus not subject to judicial estoppel | Court: Judicial estoppel does not apply because the UM claim was not a prior court proceeding under oath |
| Whether collateral estoppel prevents Morales from raising fellow-employee immunity because he did not appeal an Industrial Commission denial | Houston: Morales’s failure to appeal the denial of workers’ comp benefits precludes relitigation of the employment-zone issue | Morales: The issue here is statutory immunity in a tort suit, not the same issue actually decided in a prior adjudication | Court: Collateral estoppel inapplicable — the identical issue was not actually litigated and decided in a prior action |
| Whether Morales was a “fellow servant” entitled to immunity under R.C. 4123.741 | Houston: Fellow-employee immunity requires both parties to satisfy the "course of and arising out of" test and Morales was leaving work | Morales: Both were employees and the injury was compensable (Houston received workers’ comp), and activities on the employer’s premises fall within the "zone of employment" | Court: Held Morales was a fellow employee and the injury was compensable/within the course of employment; immunity applied, so summary judgment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Donnelly v. Herron, 88 Ohio St.3d 425 (2000) (co-employee immunity applied where a worker backed his car into a co-worker while exiting the employer’s parking lot)
- Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91 (1983) (injury need only be found compensable for fellow-employee immunity to activate)
- MTD Prod., Inc. v. Robatin, 61 Ohio St.3d 66 (1991) (general rule that ordinary commute injuries are not compensable unless within the zone of employment)
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 10 Ohio St.2d 18 (1967) (defines "zone of employment" as place of employment and area thereabout, including ingress and egress under employer control)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)