Karen Gaum


Part I of this Note will examine the Genaro decision in depth, focusing on the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning. The court looked at the language of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, specifically the use of the word “agent” as support for its imposition of individual liability. In addition, Part II will also examine the the policy goals the Ohio Supreme Court has attempted to achieve. Finally, Part II will also demonstrate that the Genaro decision is a poor one, one which was not legislatively intended, one that imposes an undue burden on individuals without a corresponding increase in benefit to plaintiffs and one that was unnecessary, given the protections to plaintiffs which already exist through vicarious liability and other causes of action.