Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.

Supreme Court of Ohio · 1982 · Torts

69 Ohio St. 2d 608 (1982)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsWorkers' compensationIntentional tortsEmployer immunityworkers' compensation exclusivityintentional tortR.C. 4123.74Section 35 Article II

Facts

The employees filed a complaint alleging that their employer committed an intentional tort that caused them direct physical injury. The employer moved to dismiss, arguing that Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 4123.74 and 4123.741 made workers' compensation the employees' exclusive remedy. Because the case came up on a motion to dismiss, the court did not try factual disputes and considered only whether the pleaded allegations could support recovery. The opinion does not resolve whether an intentional tort actually occurred, only whether such a claim may proceed at law.

Issue

Whether an employee is barred by Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 4123.74 and 4123.741 from prosecuting a civil action against an employer for an intentional tort. Also, on a motion to dismiss, whether the complaint alleged a cause of action cognizable by the forum.

Rule

An employer's compliance with the Workers' Compensation Act does not immunize the employer from civil liability for intentional torts against employees. An intentional tort is not an injury 'received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment' within the meaning of R.C. 4123.74, so the exclusivity bar does not apply. Whether alleged conduct constitutes an intentional injury is initially a question for the trier of fact, and a complaint alleging such conduct is not dismissible under Civ. R. 12(B)(1) or 12(B)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Olivia Grant worked for Lakefront Resin Systems, a manufacturer that complied with Ohio's workers' compensation laws. Olivia alleges her plant manager deliberately ordered her into a sealed mixing room after being told the room contained a concentrated vapor cloud, intending that she suffer immediate lung injury.

Lakefront moves to dismiss, arguing that workers' compensation is Olivia's exclusive remedy because the injury occurred at work. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that employer immunity under R.C. 4123.74 does not extend to intentional torts against employees. An intentional injury is not treated as one received in the course of or arising out of employment for exclusivity purposes, so a complaint alleging intentional direct physical harm states a cognizable civil claim and should not be dismissed on that ground.