Pariseau v. Wedge Products, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Once again, we are asked to distinguish between a factual *126situation in the workplace giving rise to an inference of aggravated negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of another and one giving rise to the legal concept of an intentional tort. As explained in Kunkler v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 135, 139, 522 N.E. 2d 477, 481, “[t]o establish an intentional tort there must be proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness. It is in this context that the facts should be examined to determine whether an employer has acted…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Posin v. A. B. C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Jones v. VIP Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Kunkler v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
3Cited by88 opinions
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
- Sanek v. Duracote Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
- Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.