Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp., 32676

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: TAFT; With respect to cases where there is no such contractual agreement by the employer to indemnify, Swan; WEYGANDT, C. J., and ZIMMERMAN
• Citation: 156 Ohio St. 295,102 N.E.2d 444,46 O.O.2d 172
• Parties: , 46 O.O. 172 BEVIS v. ARMCO STEEL CORP.
• Docket Number: No. 32676,32676
• Decision Date: 05 December 1951

Page 295

156 Ohio St. 295 102 N.E.2d 444, 46 O.O. 172 BEVIS
v.
ARMCO STEEL CORP. No. 32676. Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 5, 1951. Syllabus by the Court.

A wife may not maintain an action against an Ohio employer who has complied with the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ohio to recover damages for an alleged loss of consortium due to such employer's intentional, wrongful and malicious act, where such loss of consortium has resulted from a compensable occupational disease of her husband occasioned in the course of and arising out of his employment in Ohio by such employer.

Page 296

Plaintiff filed a petition in the Common Pleas Court stating that the defendant employed plaintiff's husband as a bricklayer from 1928 until he became totally disabled due to silicosis in 1944, and 'that during said period * * * plaintiff was living and consorting with * * * her husband, as the defendant well knew, and * * * continued to' do so 'until the peace and welfare of her home was destroyed by the unlawful, wilful, malicious and wrongful acts on the defendant in that:

'The defendant by and through its agents, representatives, and medical examiners, and defendant being fully aware that defendant's medical examinations of plaintiff's husband in 1941, 1942, and April 1944 and the X-rays then made disclosed that plaintiff's husband had contracted silicosis, and defendant being fully aware that old tuberculosis lesions existed in the right upper lobe of the lungs of plaintiff's husband, and defendant being fully aware of the insidious and dangerous character of silicosis when coexisting with tuberculosis lesions, and defendant knowing that plaintiff's husband was ignorant of his silicotic condition and of the effect that continuing on his job would have under such circumstances did knowingly, wilfully, intentionally, and fraudulently represent to plaintiff's husband orally, and on April 7, 1944 in writing that there existed 'no evidence of silicosis' in his lungs, * * * that her husband * * * by reason of such intentional,[102 N.E.2d 445] wilful, and fraudulent acts of the defendant did not discover until June 1945 that he had silicosis coexisting with tuberculosis lesions in his lungs * * * and that by reason of such intentional wrongful acts of the defendant the plaintiff's husband became unfitted and incapable to to give the affection, society, companionship, and consortium he had formerly given and which were due to plaintiff as his

Page 297

wife, and defendant knowingly, wilfully, and wrongfully deprived plaintiff of the affection, society, companionship and consortium of her husband.'

Plaintiff's petition states further that she had been damaged in the sum of $50,000 and prays for judgment against the defendant in that amount.

Defendant filed an answer reading in part:

'For a second defense to plaintiff's petition, defendant says that, during the period in which plaintiff alleges her husband was employed by defendant and sustained the alleged bodily condition complained of, the workmen's compensation law of Ohio * * * was in full force and effect; and that defendant was amenable to said law by reason of the employment of three (3) or more workmen or operatives regularly in the same business under a contract of hire; and that defendant had complied with the provisions of the said law by having been authorized by the Industrial Commission of Ohio to pay compensation direct to its injured employees. Further defendant says that by reason of its compliance with the workmen's compensation law of Ohio, and by reason of Article II, Section 35 of the Constitution of Ohio and Ohio General Code Section 1465-70, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.'

To this answer plaintiff filed a reply which reads, so far as it relates to the second defense in the defendant's answer:

'* * * plaintiff * * * for reply to the second defense set forth in defendant's answer filed herein denies that she sues either as an employee or employee's dependent; and denies that the workmen's compensation law of Ohio bars this action for injury to plaintiff's 'own personal right and property' legally brought in plaintiff's own name.'

Thereafter, the Common Pleas Court rendered a

Page 298

judgment, the nature and character of which is clearly indicated by the following provisions of its journal entry:

'This matter came on to be heard at the request of plaintiff and by agreement of counsel on the second defense in the answer of the defendant, the reply thereto, the evidence offered in support of said second eefense by the defendant and the argument and briefs of counsel.

'On consideration thereof the court finds that the defendant herein had fully complied with the provisions of the workmen's compensation law of Ohio * * * by having been authorized by the Industrial Commission of Ohio to pay compensation direct to its injured employees, as alleged in said second defense of its answer. The court further finds that said second defense is a good and valid defense to the cause of action alleged in plaintiff's petition and that the plaintiff herein has no cause of action against the defendant.

'Wherefore it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition filed herein be dismissed * * *.'

This judgment of the Common Pleas Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The cause is now before this court on appeal, pursuant to allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Louis C. Capelle and Robert E. Brooks, Cincinnati, for appellant.

Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, G. W. A. Wilmer, Middletown, Harold J. Siebenthaler, Henry Wise Hobson, Jr., Cincinnati, Richard A. Wilmer and John A. Wilmer, Middletown, for appellee.

TAFT, Judge.

Plaintiff's assignment of error in this court describes her action as 'a wife's action for loss of consortium due to the defendant's intentional, wrongful,

Page 299

and malicious act.' Defendant apparently concedes that there was such a cause or right of action in this state at common law. See Flandermeyer v. Cooper, 85 Ohio St. 327, [102 N.E.2d 446] 98 N.E. 102, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 360, Ann.Cas.1913A, 983.

From the allegations of the petition, it is clear that the injury, for which the plaintiff seeks damages, resulted entirely from an occupational disease of her husband which was occasioned in the course of and arose out of his employment by the defendant.

Therefore, the question to be decided in this case is whether a wife may maintain an action against an Ohio employer who has complied with the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ohio to recover damages for an alleged loss of consortium due to such employer's intentional, wrongful and malicious act, where such loss of consortium has resulted from an occupational disease of her husband occasioned in the course of and arising out of his employment in Ohio by such employer.

Admittedly, the plaintiff was nor an employee of the defendant or the dependent of a killed employee of the defendant; and, because and while her husband is still living, she cannot assert a claim for, or be eligible to receive, compensation under the Workmen's Compensation...