From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jarvis v. Schindler

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Apr 25, 1984
20 Ohio App. 3d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 11545

Decided April 25, 1984.

Workers' compensation — R.C. 4123.741 — Fellow employees' immunity from suit — Dual capacity doctrine does not extend to fellow employees.

O.Jur 2d Workmen's Compensation §§ 15, 20.

1. R.C. 4123.741 prevents an employee from being held liable to a fellow employee for injuries or death arising out of their employment.

2. The dual capacity doctrine does not extend to fellow employees.

APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Summit County.

Michael J. DelMedico, for appellant.

Robert F. Orth and Kurt R. Weitendorf, for appellee.

Orville L. Reed III, for Ford Motor Co.


Plaintiff Frank Jarvis appeals a trial court order granting Alvin G. Schindler's motion for summary judgment pursuant to R.C. 4123.741. We affirm.

Plaintiff-appellant's decedent, William J. Jarvis, was operating a 1976 Ford truck for his employer, All-Ohio Threaded Rod Company, when the brakes failed causing an accident that killed William Jarvis. The truck was owned by defendant-appellee, Alvin Schindler, who was also the decedent's fellow employee.

Frank Jarvis, administrator of the decedent's estate, filed a wrongful death action against the Ford Motor Company for negligently designing and manufacturing the braking system and against Schindler for negligently failing to maintain the braking system. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Schindler finding that R.C. 4123.741 precluded a suit against a fellow employee.

Assignment of Error

"The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Alvin Schindler."

Appellant admits that R.C. 4123.741 prevents one employee from being held liable to a fellow employee for injuries or death arising out of their employment. However, he urges this court to extend the dual capacity doctrine to the fellow servant relationship and to determine that the cause of his decedent's death — negligently maintained brakes — is not a hazard of employment. We question appellant's assertion that Schindler was acting in a dual capacity. However, we need not reach that issue. In Watson v. Sycz (Mar. 9, 1983), Summit App. No. 10885, unreported, this court refused a request to extend the dual capacity doctrine to fellow employees. This writer dissented, but now, by reason of stare decisis, must follow that decision and concur in denying a similar request.

We overrule appellant's assignment of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

BAIRD, P.J., and GEORGE, J., concur.


Summaries of

Jarvis v. Schindler

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Apr 25, 1984
20 Ohio App. 3d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Jarvis v. Schindler

Case Details

Full title:JARVIS, ADMR., APPELLANT, v. SCHINDLER, APPELLEE, ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Apr 25, 1984

Citations

20 Ohio App. 3d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
485 N.E.2d 721

Citing Cases

Saunders v. Holzer Hospital Foundation

Consequently, without a sustainable negligence claim against Holzer, any argument regarding the dual capacity…

Ryan v. Hiller

The cases in which we have previously performed a dual capacity analysis have all been employer immunity…