Hunt v. Alderman
50 N.E.3d 253
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Alderman and Hunt, Summit County deputy sheriffs, participated in a SWAT in-service training Taser instructor course on Oct. 21, 2011.
- Alderman, as part of the entry team, struck Hunt in the head with the end of his weapon while Hunt approached, during a scenario where Tasers were not delivering shocks.
- Hunt fell, was treated, diagnosed with a concussion, and received workers’ compensation.
- Internal Sheriff’s Office investigation found Alderman negligent in his use of force.
- In Sept. 2012 Hunt and wife sued Alderman for assault and battery and loss of consortium; Alderman moved for summary judgment claiming co-worker immunity under R.C. 4123.741 and no applicable intentional tort exception.
- The trial court denied summary judgment without explicit ruling on a related motions to strike; it found genuine issues of material fact regarding the intentional tort exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does co-worker immunity apply under R.C. 4123.741? | Hunt argues immunity is absent for intentional torts by a fellow employee. | Alderman contends immunity applies and the intentional tort exception does not apply. | Immunity issue requires clearer trial-court entry; appellate review reversed remand for clarification. |
| Does the intentional tort exception apply to a fellow employee’s conduct? | Hunt asserts the exception applies due to intentional harm by Alderman. | Alderman argues there was no evidence of intent to injure Hunt. | Court cannot determine from the record whether the exception applied; remanded for clarity. |
| Did the trial court adequately resolve summary judgment on immunity? | Hunt contends the court failed to resolve the sufficiency of evidence on immunity. | Alderman claims the court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on intent. | Ruling vacated; remanded to provide a clear, detailed entry for appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 90 (1984) (intent required for employer/fellow-employee torts; substantial certainty standard discussed)
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608 (1982) (limits on compensability; employer/employee immunity; later discussions in related context)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (1991) (three-part employer-specific test for intent; clarifies substantial certainty concept)
- Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials, N.A., Inc., 134 Ohio St.3d 491 (2012) (updates on employer immunities; interpretation of substantial certainty and intent)
- Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (2010) (final-appealability of immunity-denial orders under R.C. 2744.02(C))
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010) (defines scope of substantial certainty in context of Ohio employment actions)
- Summit v. ..., not applicable (not applicable) (cited for framework on reviewing summary-judgment entries (contextual))