Parker v. Ford Motor Co.
124 N.E.3d 893
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Decedent Austin Parker, a full-time Ford employee, collapsed at work, was hospitalized, and died; toxicology showed marijuana, fentanyl, and .08 BAC.
- Heather Parker sued Ford (wrongful death, survival, loss of consortium, negligence, negligent hiring/training/retention, respondeat superior), alleging Ford adopted but failed to implement a substance-abuse policy that induced workplace drug/alcohol use.
- Ford moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing employer immunity under Ohio workers’ compensation law unless an employer committed an intentional tort; alternatively, Ford argued it owed no duty to prevent employee substance abuse.
- The trial court granted dismissal, finding the complaint alleged negligence/willful negligence but not the deliberate intent to injure required to avoid workers’ compensation immunity; it labeled the dismissal "without prejudice."
- On appeal, the court treated the dismissal as a final, appealable order because Parker could not plausibly amend to plead deliberate intent and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial-court dismissal is final and appealable | Parker did not argue dismissal was nonfinal; implicit that claims could proceed | Dismissal for failure to state a claim is final if amendment cannot cure defects | Dismissal is final and appealable because plaintiff cannot plead facts to overcome the defect |
| Whether Parker's claims are barred by employer immunity under Ohio workers' compensation (R.C. 2745.01 requires deliberate intent to injure) | Parker alleged Ford willfully failed to implement its policy, inducing substance abuse and causing death | Ford: complaint alleges negligence/willful negligence only, not the deliberate intent to injure required to avoid immunity | Complaint fails to allege deliberate intent to injure; claims are within workers' comp exclusive remedy and were properly dismissed |
| Whether Ford owed a duty to prevent employee drug/alcohol use at work | Parker contended Ford had a policy and duties to implement/enforce it to prevent harm | Ford argued it owed no duty to prevent an employee from consuming substances and that enforcement failures are not deliberate intent to injure | Court agreed Ford owed no enforceable duty that would convert negligence into an intentional tort under the statute; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc., 143 Ohio St.3d 197, 2015-Ohio-843, 36 N.E.3d 122 (explains workers’ compensation immunity and the intentional-tort exception)
- DeDonno v. Mason, 128 Ohio St.3d 412, 2011-Ohio-1445, 945 N.E.2d 511 (discusses when a dismissal without prejudice may be final and appealable)
- Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 135 Ohio App.3d 92, 998 N.E.2d 517 (1st Dist.) (treats dismissal for failure to state a claim as final if amendment cannot cure defects)
- Thomas v. Othman, 151 Ohio App.3d 1, 99 N.E.3d 1189 (1st Dist.) (standards for reviewing Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions)