Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc., 2008 Ohio 2045 (Ohio App. 5/1/2008)

• Decision Date: 01 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 87073,87073
• Citation: 2008 Ohio 2045
• Parties: Joseph Talik Plaintiff-Appellant v. Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 1

2008 Ohio 2045

Joseph Talik Plaintiff-Appellant v. Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87073

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Released: May 1, 2008.

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-546597.

Affirmed.

Glenn D. Southworth, Jerome W. Cook, McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber, 2100 Bank One Center 600 Superior Avenue, East, Cleveland, OH 44114. Attorneys for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Healy, Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Richelle W. Kidder, Peter S. Voudouris, Tucker, Ellis & West LLP, 1150 Huntington Building, 925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-1475, Attorneys for Appellee.

BEFORE: McMonagle, J., Cooney, P.J., and Rocco, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J.:

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Joseph Talik, in two assignments of error, sought review of the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. Talik v. Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 704, 2006-Ohio-3979, 876 N.E.2d 1246. This court reversed the trial court's judgment upon the first assignment of error,¹ and Federal Marine successfully appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. Talik v. Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., 2008-Ohio-937, slip opinion. On remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, we consider Talik's second assignment of error.

{¶ 2} In his second assignment of error, Talik argues that even if the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA") preempts his intentional tort claim (as has now been determined by the Supreme Court), the trial court still erred in granting Federal Marine's motion for summary judgment because the exclusivity provisions of the LHWCA are in the nature of an affirmative defense, and were waived by Federal Marine because they were never raised as such. We disagree.

{¶ 3} Federal Marine raised subject matter jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in its answer. Because Ohio is a notice-pleading state, Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416, 2002-Ohio-2480, 768 N.E.2d 1136, ¶29 {¶ 4} assertion of that affirmative defense was sufficient. Accordingly, Talik's second assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy...