Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2745
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01 (2026)

Liability of employer for intentional tort - intent to injure required - exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee, or by the dependent survivors of a deceased employee, for damages resulting from an intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of employment, the employer shall not be liable unless the plaintiff proves that the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.

(B) As used in this section, "substantially certain" means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.

(C) Deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a rebuttable presumption that the removal or misrepresentation was committed with intent to injure another if an injury or an occupational disease or condition occurs as a direct result.

(D) This section does not apply to claims arising during the course of employment involving discrimination, civil rights, retaliation, harassment in violation of Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code, intentional infliction of emotional distress not compensable under Chapters 4121. and 4123. of the Revised Code, contract, promissory estoppel, or defamation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147 cases (35 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 203× “01 does not conflict with legislative authority granted by Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution — R.C. 2745.”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2010 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 180× “] Torts — Employer intentional torts — R.C. 2745.01 — R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.”
Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2012 Ohio 5317 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 78× “] Workers’ compensation—Immunity of complying employer—Intentional tort by employer—R.C. 2745.01—“Equipment safety guard” construed.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 73× “2011-1076—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 76× “The central question for our consideration is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional. Johnson has also filed a cross-appeal, contending that the trial court and court of appeals erred in dismissing his products liability claims.”
Hoyle v. DTJ Enter., Inc., 36 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 50× “{¶ 1} This appeal presents questions regarding the insurability of employer intentional torts under R.C. 2745.01. We hold that an insurance provision that excludes coverage for acts committed with the deliberate intent to injure an employee precludes coverage for employer…”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 886 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 53× “She alleged that appellee had acted with the intent to cause injury to its employee by requiring her to participate in the performance of a dangerous activity without proper safety systems, in violation of R.C. 2745.01. As part of her complaint, appellant asserted that R.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 1999 Ohio 267 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 87× “] Employer and employee—Cause of action brought by employee alleging intentional tort by employer in workplace—R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional in its entirety—Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.”
Bliss v. Johns Manville, 2022 Ohio 4366 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 26× “] Employer intentional-tort liability—R.C. 2745.01—Summary judgment—When reviewing a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in cases in which a jury ultimately reached a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor, an appellate court must construe the evidence before it most…”
Williams v. ALPLA, Inc., 2017 Ohio 4217 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “01, which is Ohio's employer intentional tort statute, reads, in relevant part, as follows: (A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee * * * for damages resulting from an intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of employment, the employer…”
Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville, 2013 Ohio 3020 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 18× “For that reason, I would dismiss her complaint for failing to establish a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.”
Fleming v. Aas Serv., Inc., 896 N.E.2d 175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 37× “” {¶ 21} Under their second assignment of error, appellants assert that the current version of R.C. 2745.01, effective April 7, 2005, is unconstitutional because it essentially mirrors former R.”
Show all 147 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(A) — 51 cases
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2010 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2010). “] Torts — Employer intentional torts — R.C. 2745.01 — R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.”
Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2012 Ohio 5317 (Ohio 2012). “] Workers’ compensation—Immunity of complying employer—Intentional tort by employer—R.C. 2745.01—“Equipment safety guard” construed.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (Ohio 2012). “2011-1076—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.”
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010). “01 does not conflict with legislative authority granted by Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution — R.C. 2745.”
Hoyle v. DTJ Enter., Inc., 36 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 1} This appeal presents questions regarding the insurability of employer intentional torts under R.C. 2745.01. We hold that an insurance provision that excludes coverage for acts committed with the deliberate intent to injure an employee precludes coverage for employer…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(B) — 42 cases
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2010 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2010). “] Torts — Employer intentional torts — R.C. 2745.01 — R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (Ohio 2012). “2011-1076—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.”
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010). “01 does not conflict with legislative authority granted by Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution — R.C. 2745.”
Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville, 2013 Ohio 3020 (Ohio 2013). “For that reason, I would dismiss her complaint for failing to establish a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 886 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “She alleged that appellee had acted with the intent to cause injury to its employee by requiring her to participate in the performance of a dangerous activity without proper safety systems, in violation of R.C. 2745.01. As part of her complaint, appellant asserted that R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(C) — 56 cases
Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2012 Ohio 5317 (Ohio 2012). “] Workers’ compensation—Immunity of complying employer—Intentional tort by employer—R.C. 2745.01—“Equipment safety guard” construed.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (Ohio 2012). “2011-1076—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.”
Hoyle v. DTJ Enter., Inc., 36 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2015). “{¶ 1} This appeal presents questions regarding the insurability of employer intentional torts under R.C. 2745.01. We hold that an insurance provision that excludes coverage for acts committed with the deliberate intent to injure an employee precludes coverage for employer…”
Bliss v. Johns Manville, 2022 Ohio 4366 (Ohio 2022). “] Employer intentional-tort liability—R.C. 2745.01—Summary judgment—When reviewing a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in cases in which a jury ultimately reached a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor, an appellate court must construe the evidence before it most…”
Pixley v. Pro-Pak Indus., Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 5460 (Ohio 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(C)(1) — 4 cases
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1999). “The central question for our consideration is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional. Johnson has also filed a cross-appeal, contending that the trial court and court of appeals erred in dismissing his products liability claims.”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 886 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “She alleged that appellee had acted with the intent to cause injury to its employee by requiring her to participate in the performance of a dangerous activity without proper safety systems, in violation of R.C. 2745.01. As part of her complaint, appellant asserted that R.”
Fleming v. Aas Serv., Inc., 896 N.E.2d 175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “” {¶ 21} Under their second assignment of error, appellants assert that the current version of R.C. 2745.01, effective April 7, 2005, is unconstitutional because it essentially mirrors former R.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 1999 Ohio 267 (Ohio 1999). “] Employer and employee—Cause of action brought by employee alleging intentional tort by employer in workplace—R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional in its entirety—Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(C)(2) — 4 cases
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010). “01 does not conflict with legislative authority granted by Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution — R.C. 2745.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1999). “The central question for our consideration is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional. Johnson has also filed a cross-appeal, contending that the trial court and court of appeals erred in dismissing his products liability claims.”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 886 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “She alleged that appellee had acted with the intent to cause injury to its employee by requiring her to participate in the performance of a dangerous activity without proper safety systems, in violation of R.C. 2745.01. As part of her complaint, appellant asserted that R.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 1999 Ohio 267 (Ohio 1999). “] Employer and employee—Cause of action brought by employee alleging intentional tort by employer in workplace—R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional in its entirety—Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(D) — 5 cases
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 2010 Ohio 1029 (Ohio 2010). “01 does not conflict with legislative authority granted by Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution — R.C. 2745.”
Steinbrink v. Greenon Local Sch. Dist., 2012 Ohio 1438 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Roberts v. RMB Enter., Inc., 967 N.E.2d 1263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Wood v. Summit Cnty. Fiscal Off., 579 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
Simonelli v. Fligner, 2012 Ohio 6112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01(D)(1) — 7 cases
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 2010 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2010). “] Torts — Employer intentional torts — R.C. 2745.01 — R.C. 2745.01 does not violate Section 34 or 35, Article II, Ohio Constitution.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1999). “The central question for our consideration is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that R.C. 2745.01 is unconstitutional. Johnson has also filed a cross-appeal, contending that the trial court and court of appeals erred in dismissing his products liability claims.”
Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (Ohio 2012). “2011-1076—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.”
Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 886 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “She alleged that appellee had acted with the intent to cause injury to its employee by requiring her to participate in the performance of a dangerous activity without proper safety systems, in violation of R.C. 2745.01. As part of her complaint, appellant asserted that R.”
Fleming v. Aas Serv., Inc., 896 N.E.2d 175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “” {¶ 21} Under their second assignment of error, appellants assert that the current version of R.C. 2745.01, effective April 7, 2005, is unconstitutional because it essentially mirrors former R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.