Evidence of Failure To Comply With Safety Regulations Not Enough for Intentional Tort Claim in Ohio

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed an employer intentional tort claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant was his employer or that the defendant acted with specific intent.  The plaintiff, a subcontractor on a construction site who was injured in a fall, alleged that the general contractor was responsible for the fall, asserting under Ohio’s employer intentional tort statute that the general contractor “deliberately failed to comply” with relevant OSHA and other safety regulations.

In dismissing the case, the court explained that the statute applied only to employers, and by plaintiff’s own admission, he did not act at the direction or control of, have an employment contract with, or receive a salary from the general contractor.  Even if the plaintiff had been able to show that the general contractor was his employer, however, the court explained that the claim would still fail because the plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required by the statute.  To bring an employer intentional tort claim in Ohio, a plaintiff must directly show a deliberate intent to injure.  Evidence of mere failure to abide by safety rules, deficiencies in training and safety measures, and failures to protect equipment were not sufficient to meet that burden where specific intent to injure was required.