Vacha v. N. Ridgeville
2011 Ohio 2446
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Vacha was raped by a coworker at the city-owned French Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant on June 2, 2006, during a city shift.
- She applied for workers’ compensation, which was approved, yielding permanent total disability benefits.
- Vacha sued the City of North Ridgeville for negligent and reckless hiring/supervision, vicarious liability, and an employer intentional tort claim.
- The city moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under R.C. 4123.74 and/or R.C. 2744.02; the trial court granted summary judgment on vicarious liability but not on the others.
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- Key legal issues concern exclusivity of workers’ compensation (R.C. 4123.74) and statutory/constitutional immunity (R.C. 2744) for employer torts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the city immune under R.C. 4123.74 for negligent/reckless hiring. | Vacha: injury qualifies as compensable ‘injury’ under 4123.01(C); exclusivity applies, so immunity attaches. | City: fully compliant with workers’ comp; Vacha’s injuries are an ‘injury’ for WC, giving immunity. | Yes, the city is immune for negligent/reckless hiring under 4123.74. |
| Whether employer intentional tort claim falls within 2744.09(B) immunity scope. | Vacha: 2744.09(B) applies to civil actions relative to employment; city not immune. | City: Ellithorp controls; employer intentional tort falls outside scope; immune. | No, 2744.09(B) may apply; Buck overruled Ellithorp; claim not immunized. |
| If 2744.02 immunities apply to employer intentional tort, does the city prevail. | Vacha: 2744.02 immunity may apply but 2744.09(B) creates exceptions for employment-related actions. | City: cannot be liable for employer intentional torts under immunity or insurance exclusions. | The city’s 2744.02 immunity burden fails for the employer intentional tort claim; 2744.09(B) may permit relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bunger v. Lawson Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 463 (Ohio 1988) (exclusivity balances employer and employee interests in workers’ comp)
- Kerans v. Porter Paint Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 486 (Ohio 1991) (psychiatric injuries generally not compensable unless accompanying physical injury)
- McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 2005) (psychiatric conditions not compensable unless accompanying injury)
- Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 1991) (employer intentional tort standard clarified)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (constitutional validity of R.C. 2745.01; standards for employer torts)
- Penn Traffic Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2003) (insurance policy exclusion related to employer torts and employment)
- Buck v. Reminderville, 2010-Ohio-6497 (Ohio 2010) (overruled Ellithorp to allow employment-related employer torts under 2744.09(B))
- Ellithorp v. Barberton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 9th Dist. No. 18029 (Ohio 1997) (held employer intentional tort cannot be immune under 2744.09(B))
- Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 624 (Ohio 1991) (injury outside employment scope for employer intentional tort)
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608 (Ohio 1982) (set baseline for exclusivity and immunity in workers’ comp context)