Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsWorkers' compensation immunityIndemnityContractual waiverworkers' compensationemployer immunitythird-party indemnityexpress waiver

Facts

Billy Davis, a Ford forklift operator, was injured when a Conrail boxcar door fell and struck him inside Ford's Fairfax plant after he and others had begun closing the door. Davis received workers' compensation benefits and then sued Conrail for personal injury. Conrail filed a third-party complaint against Ford, relying on a sidetrack agreement under which Ford agreed to indemnify Conrail for injury caused by Ford's acts or omissions and to share losses arising from joint or concurring negligence. The record did not show what caused the door to fall or whose negligence, if any, was involved.

Issue

Whether Ford, a complying employer under Ohio workers' compensation law, could be required to indemnify Conrail for Davis's workplace injury under the sidetrack agreement despite Ford's workers' compensation immunity. More specifically, the question was whether the agreement's general indemnity language amounted to an express waiver of that immunity.

Rule

Under Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 4123.74, a complying employer is immune from liability for damages arising from an employee's injury occurring in the course of employment, and that immunity bars third-party indemnity actions based on such injury unless the employer has expressly and specifically waived the immunity. General indemnity language is insufficient to constitute such a waiver.

🔒

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.

Lakefront Freight Lines operates rail service into a parts plant in Toledo, Ohio owned by Meridian Axle Works. Their service agreement states that Meridian will "indemnify and hold harmless" Lakefront for all losses or injuries caused by Meridian or its employees on the spur track. A Meridian mechanic is injured while unloading a railcar during his shift, receives workers' compensation benefits, and sues Lakefront for negligence.

If Lakefront files a third-party indemnity claim against Meridian based on the contract, how should the court rule under the majority's doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that a complying employer is constitutionally and statutorily immune from liability in damages for an employee's injury occurring in the course of employment, and that immunity extends to third-party indemnity claims arising from the same injury. The employer may waive immunity only by an express and specific waiver. A broad promise to indemnify and hold harmless is not enough by itself.