Attorney Christopher A. Holecek successfully represents Jose Camara as Ohio Supreme Court reaffirms viability of employer intentional tort claims in Camara v. Gill Dairy, LLC
On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued an important decision in Camara v. Gill Dairy, LLC (2026-Ohio-3056.pdf), clarifying the meaning of Ohio’s employer intentional tort statute, R.C. 2745.01(C), and reaffirming that courts must apply the statute as written. The Court reversed the 12th District Court of Appeals decision and reinstated a jury verdict in the amount of nearly $2Million in favor of an injured worker who suffered severe injuries after becoming entangled in an unguarded power take-off shaft.
The central issue is whether an employee seeking the statutory presumption of intent under R.C. 2745.01(C) must prove not only that an employer deliberately removed a safety guard, but also that the employer made a separate decision never to reattach or replace it. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, holding that the statute requires proof of a “deliberate removal” of an equipment safety guard and nothing more. As the Court explained, the plain language of the statute does not impose an additional requirement that an employee proves the employer never intended to replace the guard.
The Decision reflects a thoughtful balance between statutory interpretation and workplace safety. The Court faithfully applied the language chosen by the legislator while recognizing that injured workers must retain a meaningful judicial remedy in the limited circumstances specifically preserved by the statute, including cases involving the employer’s deliberate removal of safety guards.
The Decision is also significant because it serves as a reminder that employer intentional tort claims in Ohio are not extinct. Following a series of decisions over the last fifteen years interpreting R.C. 2745.01, some commentators suggested that employer intentional tort claims were effectively “dead” in Ohio. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Camara demonstrates otherwise. While these claims remain challenging and are reserved for exceptional cases, juries may still resolve disputes where evidence exists that an employer deliberately removed a safety guard and an employee was injured as a result.
Finally, Camara underscores the continued importance of the jury system in Ohio intentional tort litigation. Jury trials in these cases have become increasingly rare since the enactment of R.C. 2745.01, but the Supreme Court reaffirmed that when genuine factual disputes exist regarding the removal of safety guards those questions may properly be decided by a jury. The Decision is likely to become one of the most significant employer intentional tort opinions in recent years and provides important guidance regarding the application of R.C. 2745.01(C) for employees, employers, and courts alike. The Supreme Court’s Opinion confirms that Ohio courts must apply the statute as written and may not impose additional requirements beyond those enacted by the General Assembly.
Attorney Christopher A. Holecek of Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Jose Camara throughout the litigation including before the Ohio Supreme Court.