 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Conley v. Brown Corp.8/5/1998
ntional tort.
Brown also argues that Taylor is consistent with the wishes of the General Assembly "to rein in, not expand, employer intentional tort as a theory of recovery by injured workers beyond the workers' compensation system." Brown's argument concerning the desires of the General Assembly is apparently based on R.C. 2745.01 and former R.C. 4121.80. However, former R.C. 4121.80 was struck down in Brady, 61 Ohio St.3d 624, 576 N.E.2d 722, paragraph two of the syllabus, as an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Additionally, as Brown readily concedes, R.C. 2745.01, which became effective November 1, 1995, is not applicable in this case and, thus, we refrain from any further comment concerning that statute or the expression of legislative intent accompanying the enactment.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, vacate the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the judgment and syllabus only.
Lundberg Stratton, J., Concurring in judgment and syllabus only.
By this decision, we have not determined the underlying issue of whether an intentional tort in fact occurred. Brown alleges that this is only a products liability case and that the intentional tort action was filed to obtain discovery in the products liability case. These are issues that remain for the trial court to resolve before the issue of contribution or indemnity can be reached.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|