Schiemann v. Foti Contracting, L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 269
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Schiemann was employed intermittently by Foti, an independent subcontractor to Panzica Construction, on a project at 1211 St. Clair Ave., Cleveland.
- On July 8, 2008, Schiemann fell from a scaffold 18 feet high, injuring himself while raising the platform for stone masons.
- On July 2, 2010, the Schiemanns sued Foti for employer intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01(A) and (C), alleging lack of fall protection and guardrails.
- Foti moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not act with deliberate intent to injure and that it provided safety training and supervision.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Foti; on appeal, the Eighth District reviewed de novo and affirmed, applying recent Ohio Supreme Court interpretations of the statute.
- The court held that, under the current law, the Schiemanns failed to show deliberate intent to injure and that OSHA violations or lack of guardrails do not automatically create an employer intentional tort claim under the cited statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows deliberate intent to injure under RC 2745.01(A)-(B). | Schiemann argues the employer acted with intent to injure or is substantially certain to injure. | Foti contends only deliberate intent to injure triggers liability; no such intent shown. | No deliberate intent to injure; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether RC 2745.01(C) can be satisfied by absence of an equipment safety guard. | Schiemann relies on Hewitt to treat missing guards as intentional-tort evidence. | Hewitt limits (C) to true safety guards; harnesses are not guards; no removal. | Not a subsection (C) case; no basis for liability under (C). |
| Whether OSHA violations or lack of guardrails create employer intentional tort liability. | OSHA noncompliance evidences dangerous conditions to support intent to injure. | OSHA violations do not automatically establish deliberate intent to injure. | OSHA violations do not create intentional tort liability; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., LLC, 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (2010) (confirms intent to injure standard; limits liability under RC 2745.01(B) to deliberate intent to injure)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010) (restricts liability to situations with specific intent to injure; supports narrowing PAC rule)
- Hernandez v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc., 72 Ohio St.3d 302 (1995) (OSHA violations do not impose employer duties creating intentional torts)