written on June 20, 2011 by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
Related Items
- More Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Workers’ Compensation Claims and Hearings
-
written on June 15, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: Temporary Total Disability: Always Total, Seldom Temporary
-
written on June 06, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: Righting a Wrong: The Employer’s Use of Mandamus Proceedings
-
written on May 25, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers’ Compensation: The Industrial Commission of Ohio Discontinues the Regular Use of Video Hearings
-
written on May 23, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Workers' Compensation - Beware of Employee Misclassification When Using Independent Contractors
-
written on February 22, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Employee or Independent Contractor?
-
written on February 22, 2011
by Ross Brittain and Schonberg
- Keys To Minimizing Lost Productivity
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Information About the 2009 BWC Capping Program for Disqualified Employers
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- New Medicare Reporting Requirements for the 15K Program
-
written on August 10, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Regular Employee vs Sub Contractor is there really a difference
-
written on April 29, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp New Injury Cheat Sheet
-
written on April 27, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The Independent Medical Exam IME Who When and Why
-
written on April 20, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Transitional Work is GOOD Business
-
written on April 13, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The New BWC Deductible Program
-
written on April 08, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp eNewsletter Welcome from Steve Millard
-
written on April 07, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Comp Terms and Definitions
-
written on April 03, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Workers Compensation Administrative Update Whats Up With Group Rating
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- The Workers Comp Hearing Process
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
- Ive Fallen and I Cant Get Up What To Do When an Injury Occurs in Your Workplace
-
written on April 02, 2009
by COSEWorkersCompensation contributor
View All
More By This Expert
-
More Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Workers’ Compensation Claims and Hearings
-
written on June 15, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: Temporary Total Disability: Always Total, Seldom Temporary
-
written on June 06, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: Righting a Wrong: The Employer’s Use of Mandamus Proceedings
-
written on May 25, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers’ Compensation: The Industrial Commission of Ohio Discontinues the Regular Use of Video Hearings
-
written on May 23, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Workers' Compensation - Beware of Employee Misclassification When Using Independent Contractors
-
written on February 22, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
-
Employee or Independent Contractor?
-
written on February 22, 2011 by Ross,Brittain&Schonberg (Contributor)
View All
For employers who build their own machines, should there be concern over a product liability lawsuit if an employee is hurt using the machine? For example, let’s say the employer is a shoe manufacturer and develops a unique machine to help with the soling of shoes. The machine is built in-house by the employer and used in the production of their product. The machine malfunctions and injures an employee. The employee, in addition to a workers’ compensation claim, also brings a product liability action against the employer. Is the product liability lawsuit a viable action? The simple answer is “no.”
Generally speaking, the only method of recovery for an injured worker against an employer is through the workers’ compensation system. The Ohio system denies an injured worker the right to damages at common law or by statute for an injury incurred while the employer was compliant.
The main exceptions to this rule are intentional torts and the “Dual-Capacity Doctrine.” The Dual-Capacity Doctrine allows an injured worker to bring a negligence lawsuit against their employer for violation of a duty that arises from a relationship unrelated to the employment relationship.
Employees have attempted to allege product liability under the Dual-Capacity Doctrine when they have been injured using a machine built by their employer. Employees have been unsuccessful in such actions. As a general rule put forth by Ohio courts, “it is universally held that where an employer designs and manufactures a product for use by its employees and not for sale to the general public, an employee injured while using that product within the scope of his employment may not maintain a products liability action against his employer under the dual-capacity doctrine on the theory that the employer assumed an independent role as manufacturer.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio further expanded the rule to include products that are mass marketed to the general public, so long as the product was being used for employment purposes. The case wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio made this decision involved an injured worker who was driving a company vehicle for Firestone with Firestone tires. A tire blew out and the employee suffered injuries. The employee alleged, among other theories, product liability based upon the defective tire. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that even if the product was for sale to the general public, if the product was also being used for the company’s own use, and the product was being used within the scope of the employee’s employment, the employee still could not bring a product liability action against his employer under the Dual-Capacity Doctrine. The tires were furnished to the injured worker solely as an employee and not as a member of the consuming public.
Based upon these decisions, an employer that builds a machine in-house for use in production should not be concerned over the possibility of a product liability claim.
Please do not hesitate to contact Meredith Ullman or any of the experienced workers’ compensation attorneys at RBS with questions or concerns regarding workers’ compensation injuries involving in-house machines.
By: Meredith L. Ullman