Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4123
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.77 (2026)

Common law defenses denied to noncomplying employers

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked July 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 494 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Private employers who fail to comply with section 4123.35 of the Revised Code are not entitled to the benefits of sections 4123.01 to 4123.94, inclusive, of the Revised Code, during the period of such noncompliance, but are liable to their employees for damages suffered by reason of personal injuries sustained in the course of employment caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the employer, or any of the employer's officers, agents, or employees, and also to the personal representatives of such employees where death results from such injuries, and in such action the defendant shall not avail self of the following common law defenses:

(A) The defense of the fellow servant rule;

(B) The defense of the assumption of risk;

(C) The defense of contributory negligence.

Such employers are subject to sections 4123.37 and 4123.75 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1963–1990 · leading case: Vandemark v. Southland Corp., 525 N.E.2d 1374 (Ohio 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vandemark v. Southland Corp., 525 N.E.2d 1374 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 6× “The matter *8 was also reviewed by the court of appeals in that stance, and the trial court was reversed, both upon the basis that Southland was a non-complying self-insured employer under R.C. 4123.77, and that “the complaint alleges a pecuniary loss as the direct result of…”
Bridges v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 551 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 3× “II The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal of appellees’ claims against National for personal injury and wrongful death, holding that National was not a “noncomplying employer” subject to civil actions by its employees under R.C. 4123.77 because it was not an…”
Poche v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 339 So. 2d 1212 (La. 1976). “Code § 65-09-1 (1975); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.77 (Page 1975); Okla.”
In Re Carlton Enter., Inc., 103 B.R. 876 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1989). · cites it 3× “Carlton), the employee has the option of bringing suit in common law against the employer, Ohio Rev.Code § 4123.77, or filing for workers’ compensation benefits.”
Suez Co. v. Young, 195 N.E.2d 117 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1963). · cites it 2× “Section 4123.77, Revised Code, provides that employers, as defined by Section 4123.”
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.