State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall
2013 Ohio 2207
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Yeaples and Cole, employees of Precision, were injured when an excavator backed over Yeaples at a job site.
- Relators filed a Cuyahoga County case asserting a workplace intentional tort against Precision and Cole, among others.
- Circuit judge initially transferred venue to Medina County based on Cole as nominal; Medina later found Count 1 could include Cole.
- Cuyahoga County court later refused venue and transferred back to Medina, prompting this extraordinary writ action.
- Relators seek to force Judge Gall to retain venue in Cuyahoga and proceed to merits rather than transferring, arguing Cole is a proper tortfeasor and venue is proper in Cuyahoga.
- Medina County judge indicated venue issue remained unsettled until disposition of this writ action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim against Cole for a workplace intentional tort. | Yeaples includes Cole in Count 1 via plural term ‘defendants.’ | Cole is a nominal party shielded by co-employee immunity; no specific tort against Cole. | Yes; complaint states a claim against Cole. |
| Whether co-employee immunity bars a claim against Cole. | Immunity does not preclude a common-law intentional tort against a co-employee. | R.C. 4123.741 immunizes employees from others’ damages in employment; bars intentional tort claim. | Immunity does not preclude an intentional tort against a co-employee. |
| Whether mandamus/procedendo is an appropriate remedy to review venue orders. | Writs are appropriate to resolve venue disputes where ordinary remedies are inadequate. | Remedies typically include appeal after final judgment; writs may be inappropriate. | Yes; extraordinary writs are appropriate to resolve the venue dispute. |
| Whether venue is proper in Cuyahoga County for the underlying case. | Cole resides in Cuyahoga County; venue proper where defendant resides or principal place of business. | If Cole is nominal, venue should lie elsewhere consistent with co-employee immunity. | Venue is proper in Cuyahoga County. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chems., Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608 (1982) (R.C. 4123.741 does not bar intentional tort remedy against a co-employee)
- Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 106 Ohio St.3d 151 (2005) (mandamus appropriate to resolve venue disputes when immediate relief needed)
- State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118 (1987) (mandamus standard and relief limitations)
- Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus standards; discretionary relief)
- Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (1990) (procedendo; adequate remedy at law considerations)