Legal Opinion
Sanek v. Duracote Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 14, 1989No. 88-434PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The principal issue before this court is whether the facts in the record are sufficient, as a matter of law, to allow the issue of whether the employer committed an intentional tort to go to a jury. We hold that the facts are insufficient and we reverse the appellate court.
Appellee’s intentional tort action must be determined according to the standards set forth in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the syllabus to Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 100, 522 N.E. 2d 489, as follows:
“Within the purview of Section 8(A) of the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, and Section 8…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Jones v. VIP Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Kunkler v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- Gary Kusens, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pascal Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Berge v. Columbus Community Cable AccessOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
- Harn v. Continental Lumber Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Youssef v. Parr, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Cook v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.