Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc.

2002 Ohio 2840, 95 Ohio St. 3d 532

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 2002

Docket2001-0947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2002 Ohio 2840 (Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc., 2002 Ohio 2840, 95 Ohio St. 3d 532 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 532.]

MILLER, APPELLANT, v. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLEE. [Cite as Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc., 2002-Ohio-2840.] Workers’ compensation—Proof required to establish that an employer has committed an intentional tort against an employee—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. and cause remanded to trial court for further proceedings. (No. 2001-0947—Submitted May 8, 2002—Decided June 26, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20149. __________________ {¶1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶2} When the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ruhlin Construction, it cited and applied Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, as the controlling law governing the elements of an employer intentional tort claim. In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals likewise applied Fyffe in its analysis. Given that both lower courts relied on Fyffe, the majority’s summary reversal “on the authority of Fyffe” is cryptically unhelpful to the trial court on remand. Although the trial court will certainly infer from today’s decision that it misapplied the relevant precedent, it is left with no explanation of how it did so. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶3} In any event, I find no basis for reversal in this case and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. On the record before us, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of Ruhlin Construction. I therefore respectfully dissent. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Perantinides & Nolan Co., L.P.A., Paul G. Perantinides and Antonios P. Tsarouhas, for appellant. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Orville L. Reed III and A. Elizabeth Cargle, for appellee. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 532.]

MILLER, APPELLANT, v. RUHLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLEE. [Cite as Miller v. Ruhlin Constr., Inc., 2002-Ohio-2840.] Workers’ compensation—Proof required to establish that an employer has committed an intentional tort against an employee—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. and cause remanded to trial court for further proceedings. (No. 2001-0947—Submitted May 8, 2002—Decided June 26, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20149. __________________ {¶1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ COOK, J., dissenting. {¶2} When the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ruhlin Construction, it cited and applied Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, as the controlling law governing the elements of an employer intentional tort claim. In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the court of appeals likewise applied Fyffe in its analysis. Given that both lower courts relied on Fyffe, the majority’s summary reversal “on the authority of Fyffe” is cryptically unhelpful to the trial court on remand. Although the trial court will certainly infer from today’s decision that it misapplied the relevant precedent, it is left with no explanation of how it did so. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶3} In any event, I find no basis for reversal in this case and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. On the record before us, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of Ruhlin Construction. I therefore respectfully dissent. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________ Perantinides & Nolan Co., L.P.A., Paul G. Perantinides and Antonios P. Tsarouhas, for appellant. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Orville L. Reed III and A. Elizabeth Cargle, for appellee. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Ohio 2840, 95 Ohio St. 3d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-ruhlin-constr-inc-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack