2016 Ohio 2714
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Kristin Kenney and Sarah Ables were coworkers at Kohl’s; after a shift both walked to employee‑parking lot vehicles when Ables’ 1997 Acura (manual transmission with an automatic starter) unexpectedly started, jumped a curb, and pinned Kristin to the building, causing serious injury.
- Kristin and her husband Stephen sued Ables for negligence and loss of consortium (filed Dec. 5, 2013). Ables invoked co‑employee immunity under R.C. 4123.741, arguing the injury arose out of employment and was compensable under workers’ compensation.
- Kristin applied for and received Bureau of Workers’ Compensation benefits; a Staff Hearing Officer affirmed compensability on appeal (Dec. 8, 2014).
- Trial court stayed the civil case during the workers’ compensation proceedings; after reactivation Ables moved for summary judgment based on R.C. 4123.741; the court granted summary judgment (Aug. 18, 2015), concluding Ables’ actionable conduct occurred in the course of employment and Stephen’s consortium claim was derivative and therefore failed.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the trial court improperly weighed evidence and that Ables’ allegedly known faulty automatic starter was not conduct "in the course of and arising out of" employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether co‑employee immunity under R.C. 4123.741 bars Kristin’s negligence claim | Kristin: Ables’ actionable conduct was long‑term negligent maintenance (knowledge of a faulty automatic starter), not conduct occurring in the course of employment | Ables: The actionable act was depressing the starter button while on employer premises after work—an act in the course of employment; injury is compensable under workers’ compensation | Court: Granted summary judgment for Ables; depressing the starter occurred in the course of and arising out of employment, so R.C. 4123.741 immunity applies |
| Whether Kristin presented evidence Ables knew the starter was faulty | Kristin: Argues awareness of long‑standing faulty starter supports negligence outside employment context | Ables: Testified she believed the automatic starter didn’t work and never used it; no evidence she knew it was faulty | Court: Kristin failed to show Ables knew the starter was faulty; no genuine issue on that fact |
| Whether Stephen’s loss of consortium claim survives if Kristin’s tort claim is barred | Stephen: Seeks consortium recovery independent of Kristin’s barred claim | Ables: Consortium claim is derivative and dies if Kristin’s claim fails | Court: Consortium claim dismissed as derivative of Kristin’s barred claim |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given the evidence | Kristin: Trial court improperly weighed evidence and should have found genuine issues of material fact | Ables: Record (including workers’ comp findings and testimony) established no genuine issue on material facts | Court: Applied de novo review and ruled summary judgment proper in favor of Ables |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 10 Ohio St.2d 18 (1967) (parking‑lot injuries adjacent to employer premises can be "in the course of and arising out of" employment)
- Donnelly v. Herron, 88 Ohio St.3d 425 (2000) (R.C. 4123.741 immunity applies only when the coemployee’s actionable conduct occurs in the course of and arising out of the coemployee’s employment)
- Bowen v. Kil‑Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84 (1992) (loss of consortium is derivative of spouse’s tort claim)