Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | HILDEBRANT; MATTHEWS; ROSS |
| Citation | 86 Ohio App. 525,93 N.E.2d 33 |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1949 |
| Parties | , 56 Ohio Law Abs. 473, 42 O.O. 200 BEVIS v. ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, etc. |
Page 525
v.
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, etc.
1. Under Section 35, Art. II of the Constitution of Ohio and General Code, section 1465-70, the open liability of employers is abolished, and in every case where the injury, disease, or bodily condition occurred in or arose out of the employment, no matter how incurred, except self-inflicted, the Workmen's Compensation Law is the exclusive remedy, and such condition is either compensable under that law or not at all, and no action of any kind may be brought against a complying employer therefor.
2. However, regardless of the sweeping character of such abrogation, certain common law actions may still be maintained by an employee where the cause of action is predicated upon some wrong or contractual obligation, compensation and satisfaction for which is not furnished by the Workmen's Compensation Act, such as an action for false representations.
3. In an action for false representation and fraud, brought by an employee against [93 N.E.2d 34] his employer, where the damages charged in the petition are those for which under the Workmen's Compensation Act the employee may have an award, and where such employee alleges that he has availed himself of such provisions and obtained an award of compensation, such petition is subject to demurrer.
Robert E. Brooks, Louis C. Capelle, and Robert L. Young, all of Cincinnati, for plaintiff-appellant.
G. W. A. Wilmer, Middletown, Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, for defendant-appellee.
HILDEBRANT, Judge.
Demurrer to the amended petition
Page 526
on the grounds, that (1) the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action; and (2) the amended petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was sustained by the Common Pleas Court, and the judgment entered for the defendant appealed here on questions of law.Plaintiff labels his amended petition an action for deceit, alleging in substance that in November, 1928 he was employed by defendant as a bricklayer and continued in such employment until December, 1944, when ill health, due to silicosis, acquired in the course of such employment, forced him to discontinue such employment; that defendant is amenable to and has complied with the Workmen's Compensation Law of Ohio, and that this action is not based on any of the provisions of that law; that he was given physical examinations previously, including X-Ray of the chest by defendant's doctors, and on April 4, 1944 examined by a lung specialist, hired by defendant, including X-Ray of the chest.
The deceit alleged was that while these examinations revealed to the defendant that plaintiff had contracted silicosis, nevertheless the defendant concealed that fact from the plaintiff and falsely represented to plaintiff, both orally and in writing, that such examinations disclosed no evidence of silicosis, whereby plaintiff was induced to continue on the jub, where he was exposed to harmful working conditions, resulting in the aggravation and acceleration of his silicosis until he became totally and permanently disabled thereby, to his great damage.
The trial court correctly stated the sole question to be:--May a complying employer be held liable to respond in damages at common law or otherwise for any injury or disease or bodily condition occurring in or arising out of the course of the employment?
Page 527
In proposing to amend Section 35 of Art. II of the Ohio Constitution, the Legislature in its schedule contained in the joint resolution 110 O. Laws, 632, state the purposes of the amendment to be:
'Providing compensation for all accidents and diseases arising out of employment, providing additional compensation for employes where accident or disease results from failure to comply with specific requirements for the protection of lives, health and safety of employes, Abolishing open liability of employers, and providing a fund for the investigation and prevention of industrial accidents and diseases.' (Emphasis added).
It is, therefore, clear that the legislature in proposing, and the people in adopting the amendment, considered that the language thereof was sufficient to abolish the open liability of employers. That section, as amended, effective January 1, 1924, reads in part:
'For the purpose of providing compensation to workmen and their dependents, for death, injuries or occupational disease, occasioned in the course of such workmen's employment, laws may be passed establishing a state fund to be created by compulsory contribution thereto by employers, and administered by the state, determining the terms and conditions upon which payment shall be made therefrom. Such compensation shall be in lieu of all other rights to compensation, or damages, for such death, injuries, or occupational disease, and any employer who pays the premium or compensation provided by law, passed in accordance herewith, shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for [93 N.E.2d 35] such death, injuries or occupational disease.'
Thereafter, in Mabley & Carew Co. v. Lee, 129 Ohio St. 69, 193 N.E. 745, 100 A.L.R. 511, the amended constitutional provision was held sufficiently broad to bar the action for
Page 528
damages based on an alleged violation of the laws relating to the employment of females and minors. The Court, 129 Ohio St. at page 74, 193 N.E. 745, in contrasting the language of the amendment with former provisions refers to the legislative intent disclosed in 110 Ohio Laws 632. It is further noticed in 129 Ohio St. at page 73, 193 N.E. 745, that former Section 1465-76, General Code, providing for an election by the employee in the case of willful acts of the employer was considered, as by implication, repealed by the amendment effective January...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 51947
...interference with the employee's compensation rights may be found in the concurring opinion of Judge Ross in Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp., 86 Ohio App. 525, 93 N.E.2d 33 (1949), appeal dismissed 153 Ohio St. 366, 91 N.E.2d 479, cert. denied 340 U.S. 810, 71 S.Ct. 37, 95 L.Ed. 595 (1950). In B......
-
Edward Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., 81-LW-2840
...passed pursuant thereto, see Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp. (1951), 156 Ohio St. 295, 102 N.E.2d 444, and Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp. (1949), 86 Ohio App. 525, 93 N.E.2d 33, appeal dismissed (1950), 153 Ohio St. 366, 91 N.E.2d 479, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 810. By this amendment, the right of the ......
-
Egan v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 85-699
...not long, however, before members of Ohio's judiciary began to recognize exceptions to the rule. In Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp. (1949), 86 Ohio App. 525, 93 N.E.2d 33 [42 O.O. 200], for instance, one member of the Court of Appeals for Butler County explicitly stated that workers' compensatio......
-
Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.
...of nature and extent of injury), appeal dismissed, 76 N.Y.2d 1018, 565 N.Y.S.2d 767, 566 N.E.2d 1172 (1990); Bevis v. Armco Steel Corp., 86 Ohio App. 525, 93 N.E.2d 33 (1949) (workmen's compensation statute bars all actions against employer regardless whether they are compensable injuries u......