Abstract
The purpose of this comment is to discuss the issues and developments in the intentional tort area. Although analogies are drawn from developments in other jurisdictions, the primary focus will be on Ohio decisions. As will be demonstrated, Ohio courts are now being faced with the following question: Is an employer protected from common law damages no matter how his employee is injured, or should he be "punished" by a common law action when he intentionally injures his employee? Within this query are many others: What is an intentional injury? Can the employee recover workman's compensation and common law damages when intentionally injured? If the worker can only elect one remedy, when does a binding election occur? Various Ohio courts of common pleas have been forced to answer these questions, and the results have been inconsistent. This paper will explore the various approaches taken by the courts and will suggest a legislative solution designed to restore consistency and some degree of certainty to the area.
Recommended Citation
Wiley, Donald P.
(1984)
"Workers' Compensation in Ohio: Scope of Employment and the Intentional Tort,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 17:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol17/iss2/5