Does 2005 ‘Intentional Tort’ Legislation Violate Plaintiffs’ Due Process, Fair Trial, Equal Protection Rights?
Carl Stetter, et al. v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services LLC, et al., Case no. 2008-0972 ISSUES: • Does the current version of R.C. 2745.01 a) codify the common law cause of action for a “workplace intentional tort” previously recognized by Supreme Court decisions and add a new statutory cause of action; or does the statute b) eliminate the previously recognized common law cause of action based on a “substantial certainty” of injury, and allow intentional tort claims to be advanced only where a worker can show that his employer “deliberately intended” to cause his injuries? • If the statute is read to extinguish the common law cause of action for intentional torts based on “substantial certainty” of injury, does the statute violate the rights of plaintiffs to due process, equal protection, trial by jury, and other constitutional rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Ohio constitutions? BACKGROUND: In this case from Wood County, Carl Stetter suffered multiple broken bones and other serious i
