Hunt v. Alderman
2017 Ohio 7591
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Summit County SWAT conducted a Taser-driven training on Oct. 21, 2011; participants rotated roles; instructor briefed that no blows should be exchanged and scenario was Taser-focused.
- Miguel Hunt played the "bad guy" wearing a padded Taser suit with a cloth head covering (no hard helmet); entry team members wore hard helmets.
- As Hunt approached the entry team, Deputy Alderman (providing cover) struck Hunt on the side of the head with the butt of his rifle; Hunt fell and later received workers’ compensation benefits.
- Hunt sued Alderman for assault/battery, alleging Alderman knew striking the head was substantially certain to cause serious injury; Alderman moved for summary judgment claiming co-employee immunity under R.C. 4123.741.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; this Court previously remanded for more detailed findings and on remand again affirmed denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hunt) | Defendant's Argument (Alderman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alderman met initial summary-judgment burden showing lack of intent to injure | Hunt argues evidence shows Alderman struck deliberately and knew risk of serious harm | Alderman contends affidavits/deposition show he believed headgear would protect and did not intend harm | Court: Alderman met initial Dresher burden but burden then shifted to Hunt, who raised genuine issue of fact |
| Whether factual record creates a genuine issue that Alderman knew injury was substantially certain | Hunt points to Alderman’s admissions (struck temple, intended to disable, knew area vulnerable) and testimony that Taser-suit did not provide hard head protection | Alderman argues lack of recollection, belief that protective gear existed, and that strike was inadvertent/intended only to tap | Court: Viewing evidence for Hunt, a genuine issue exists whether Alderman knew injury was substantially certain |
| Whether R.C. 4123.741 bars Hunt’s civil claim (co-employee immunity) for intentional tort | Hunt contends intentional-tort exception applies; civil liability remains for intentional acts substantially certain to injure | Alderman contends workers’ compensation is exclusive remedy and immunity applies even after comp benefits | Court: Prior panel ruling controls; co-employee immunity does not extend to intentional torts; intentional-tort exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (standards for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s initial burden in summary-judgment practice)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 90 (definition of intentional tort: intent to injure or belief injury substantially certain)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Ranke, 127 Ohio St.3d 126 (workers’ compensation exclusivity issues discussed)