Sanders v. Fridd, 2013 Ohio 4338

Sanders sued Fridd and Premierfirst Banc for negligence; Fridd claimed co-worker immunity under RC 4123.741.
Incident in Feb. 2006: Fridd allegedly pushed Sanders during horseplay, causing a serious wrist fracture.
Horseplay was common at Premierfirst; Woods was absentee owner, Fridd as general manager controlled policies and day-to-day operations.
Sanders received workers’ compensation for the injury, implicating the WC system in the dispute.
The trial court granted and then the appellate court reversed on immunity issues; trial occurred and the jury returned a verdict for Fridd.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether co-worker immunity properly instructed the jury.	Sanders argues the jury instructions misstate immunity rules.	Fridd argues instructions correctly stated the law.	Yes, instructions were correct as a whole.
Admission of prior acts of horseplay.	Sanders contends prior acts were improper to prove consent/acquiescence.	Fridd contends prior acts were admissible to show employer acquiescence.	Yes, admissible background evidence to prove consent/acquiescence.
Effect of jury interrogatories and potential jury confusion.	Sanders claims interrogatories were confusing and prejudicial.	Fridd contends interrogatories tested determinative issues and were proper.	Interrogatories properly submitted; no reversible error.

Donnelly v. Herron, 88 Ohio St.3d 425 (2000) (co-worker immunity requires both injured and injuring employees to be in service)
Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91 (1983) (WC findings can preclude common-law claims against co-employees)
Caygill v. Jablonski, 78 Ohio App.3d 807 (1992) (employer consent/acquiescence to horseplay facts matter for immunity)
Bankes v. Indus. Comm., 127 Ohio St. 517 (1934) (general rule: no WC recovery for on-duty horseplay disconnected from employment; exceptions exist)
Orme v. Baker, 74 Ohio St. 337 (1906) (corporation knowledge imputed through officers)