Schump v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This appeal raises two questions: first, whether plaintiffs may maintain a products liability action against defendant employer under the dual-capacity doctrine,1 and, second, whether summary judgment on plaintiffs’ intentional tort claim was appropriate. We answer both questions in the negative. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.'

I

This court first recognized an action under the dual-capacity doctrine in Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co. (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 183, 9 O.O. 3d 138, 378 N.E. 2d 488. In Guy, we held that a hospital employee could maintain a medical…