 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Standring v. Gerbus Brothers Construction Company9/29/2000
OPINION.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
This is an appeal from a wrongful-death action arising out of a work-related accident that killed Michael Standring. At the time of his death, Standring, an Ohio resident, was employed by Gerbus Brothers Construction Company, an Ohio corporation. Standring was killed near Maysville, Kentucky, while working on a Gerbus project for Eastern Kentucky Power, when a piece of heavy equipment he was operating sank into a fly-ash pond, resulting in his death by asphyxiation. The plaintiff, Standring's widow and the administratrix of his estate, brought an action in the trial court for an intentional tort, the exception under Ohio law to the general rule limiting recovery for injuries in the workplace to workers' compensation benefits. In her sole assignment of error, Mrs. Standring argues that the trial court erred by granting Gerbus summary judgment on her claim, ruling that Kentucky, not Ohio, law controlled. For the reasons that follow, we agree and thus reverse.
Initially we note that this appeal does not concern the merits of Mrs. Standring's intentional-tort claim. The trial court never reached that issue because of its view that Kentucky law controlled. Instead, we are concerned solely with the conflict-of-law issue. Pursuant to Civ.R. 44.1(A)(3), the decision of the trial court on this issue is to be treated as a question of law, and is therefore subject to de novo review. See Brunner v. Quantum Chemical Corp. (Mar. 17, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-920037, unreported.
Both parties agree that the applicable conflict-of-law analysis is that in Morgan v. Biro Manufacturing Co., Inc., (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 339, 474 N.E.2d 286. That analysis is taken from 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws (1971), Sections 6, 145, and 146. Section 6 states that the forum court should first follow a statutory directive of its own state on the proper law to be applied; however, in the absence of such a directive, the forum state is directed to consider the following relevant factors in determining which state's law to apply:
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems;
(b) the relevant policies of the forum;
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue;
(d) the protection of justified expectations; and
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular law.
Section 145 states that the applicable law with respect to an issue in tort is that of the state which has the most significant relationship. Section 146 creates a presumption in favor of the law of the place of injury "unless another jurisdiction has a more significant relationship to the lawsuit." The section then sets forth a list of factors that the trial court should consider to determine the state with the most significant relationship. These factors include the following:
(1) the place of injury;
(2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties;
(4) the place where the relationship between the parties, if any, is located; and
(5) any factors under Section 6 deemed relevant.
THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION
The trial court, in its decision granting summary judgment, ruled that, when applying the factors enumerated in Section 146, "both Ohio and Kentucky share a substantial interest in th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|