An appellate court in Ohio has ruled that the state's workers' compensation law barred a widow's tort claim against Ford Motor Company alleging that her husband had died at work because Ford failed to enforce its anti-drug policy.
The Case
Austin Parker, a full-time employee of Ford Motor Company, collapsed while on duty at work. He was transported to a hospital, where he later passed away. A toxicology report indicated that he had marijuana and fentanyl in his system and that his blood alcohol level was .08.
Heather A. Parker, Mr. Parker's widow, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Ford. She alleged that Ford had a company policy prohibiting substance abuse, that Ford had failed to implement the policy in the workplace, and that Ford's failure to implement the policy induced employees such as Mr. Parker to possess and use drugs and alcohol in the workplace. Ms. Parker's complaint alleged claims for wrongful death; a survival action; loss of consortium; negligence; negligent hiring, training, and retention; and respondeat superior.
Ford moved to dismiss, arguing that it was entitled to immunity under Ohio's workers' compensation system because Ms. Parker's complaint failed to allege an intentional tort. It further argued in the alternative that Ford did not owe Mr. Parker a duty to prevent him from abusing drugs or alcohol.
The trial court granted Ford's motion to dismiss, ruling that Ms. Parker's claims were barred by the employer immunity provisions of the workers' compensation law and that Ford had no duty to prevent Mr. Parker from using drugs or alcohol.
Ms. Parker appealed.
The Ohio Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed.
In its decision, the appellate court explained that, pursuant to O.R.C. 4123.74 and Article II, Section 35, of the Ohio constitution, employers have immunity for a majority of workplace injuries, and an employee's exclusive remedy for a workplace injury is within the workers' compensation system. The only exception, the appellate court continued, is for an intentional tort, because that claim “arises outside of the employment relationship, and the workers' compensation system does not preempt the employee's cause of action.”
The appellate court added that, to state a claim against Ford upon which relief could be granted, Ms. Parker had to allege that Ford had acted with the “deliberate intent” to injure Mr. Parker. It then held that, accepting all allegations in Ms. Parker's complaint as true, and making all reasonable inferences in her favor, her complaint failed to allege that Ford had deliberately intended to cause injury or death to Mr. Parker.
At most, the court concluded, Ms. Parker's complaint alleged “negligence and/or willful negligence.”
Accordingly, the appellate court concluded, Ms. Parker's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the trial court had not erred in granting Ford's motion to dismiss.
The case is Parker v. Ford Motor Co., No. C-180070 (Ohio Ct. App. March 15, 2019). Attorneys involved include: F. Harrison Green Co. LPA and F. Harrison Green, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Frost Brown Todd LLC and Erin E. Orndorff, and Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C., and Paul D. Hudson, for Defendant-Appellee.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].