BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT — Columbus’s economy — freight and logistics, warehousing,
healthcare systems, automotive manufacturing, and heavy construction tied to the Intel and
battery-plant build-out — produces a distinct pattern of catastrophic workplace injuries where
an Employer Intentional Tort (EIT) claim under Ohio Revised Code § 2745.01 may apply
alongside a standard workers’ compensation claim. Plevin & Gallucci’s Columbus office, at
2323 W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 240, represents employees in central Ohio with workplace
injuries for EIT claims in addition to workers’ compensation and third-party liability.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries — but ORC § 2745.01 allows a separate lawsuit against the employer when the employer deliberately removed an equipment safety guard, deliberately misrepresented a toxic or hazardous substance, or acted with actual intent to injure.
- Columbus’s warehouse, logistics, healthcare, manufacturing and construction sectors can generate the exact fact patterns — machine guard removal, undisclosed chemical exposure — that most often support a viable EIT claim.
- EIT lawsuits are civil cases filed separately from the workers’ comp claim — often with more than one available venue. Selecting the right court for each case is part of building it correctly; the underlying workers’ comp claim is handled separately through the Industrial Commission.
- The two claims are not mutually exclusive — an injured worker can pursue workers’ compensation benefits and an EIT lawsuit at the same time.
Bottom line: An EIT lawsuit requires proof of deliberate employer intent — a deliberately
removed machine guard, a deliberately concealed hazardous substance, or an actual intent to
injure. If a Columbus-area workplace injury involved any of those, it’s worth a legal evaluation
beyond the standard workers’ comp claim.
Plevin & Gallucci opened its Columbus office to bring the firm’s statewide workplace injury practice directly to central Ohio. Since then, Intel’s New Albany campus, the Honda-LG battery plant in Jeffersonville, Amazon’s expanding fulfillment footprint, and the growth of the OhioHealth and Mount Carmel hospital systems have reshaped the kinds of injuries the office sees — and, with them, the frequency of fact patterns that raise an employer intentional tort question rather than a standard workers’ compensation question alone. This guide explains how EIT claims apply to the kinds of workplace injuries most common in Franklin County.
Why Columbus’s Economy Produces a Distinct EIT Injury Profile
Most Ohio EIT claims succeed only in narrow circumstances: deliberate removal of a machine safety guard, or intentional misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance. Columbus’s industrial mix generates both fact patterns at meaningful volume.
Ohio’s automotive plants — including Honda’s central Ohio assembly and stamping operations — run presses, robotic weld cells, and high-speed conveyor lines where point-of-operation guards and interlocks are what keep operators safe. When one of those guards is deliberately removed or bypassed to keep the line moving, a resulting injury may support an EIT claim under the equipment safety guard presumption in ORC § 2745.01(C) — in addition to the underlying workers’ comp claim.
Warehouse and distribution center injuries
Forklift, conveyor, and palletizing equipment injuries are among the most common serious machinery injuries coming out of Columbus-area distribution centers. When a conveyor’s point-of-operation guard or an interlock has been deliberately bypassed to maintain throughput, the resulting injury may support an EIT claim under the equipment safety guard presumption in ORC § 2745.01(C) — in addition to the underlying workers’ comp claim.
Construction site injuries
Ongoing build-out at Intel’s Licking County campus and at data center sites in New Albany, Hilliard, and West Jefferson involves heavy equipment, multiple subcontractors, and compressed schedules. Deliberately disabled machine guarding on power tools, presses, or fabrication equipment on these sites can raise the same EIT analysis, often alongside a separate third-party liability claim against a subcontractor or equipment manufacturer.
Manufacturing chemical and toxic substance exposure
Central Ohio’s automotive-parts, plastics, coatings, and metal-finishing plants routinely handle solvents, adhesives, and other hazardous chemicals workers may not be warned about. When an employer knows a substance is toxic and deliberately misrepresents that hazard to staff, the toxic substance presumption under ORC § 2745.01(C) can apply.
“Columbus’s freight, warehousing, and manufacturing economy can produce the exact injury patterns — safety guard removal and undisclosed chemical exposure — that Ohio’s narrow intentional tort statute was actually built to address.”
Where Franklin County EIT Cases Are Heard
An Employer Intentional Tort claim is a civil lawsuit, filed separately from the workers’ compensation claim. EIT cases are most often filed in the county where the injury occurred — but that is rarely the only option. These cases frequently present several proper venue choices, and the venue can meaningfully affect how a case proceeds. We take the steps necessary to consider every available option and select the venue best suited to each particular case. Where a matter is filed in Franklin County, EIT lawsuits are heard in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in downtown Columbus — the same court that hears other Franklin County personal injury and product liability matters.
The underlying workers’ compensation claim runs on a separate track. If it’s contested, it’s heard before Industrial Commission of Ohio district hearing officers at the regional office on Cleveland Avenue — not before the Common Pleas judge handling the EIT lawsuit. Coordinating the two proceedings, including managing subrogation and any offset between an EIT recovery and workers’ comp benefits already paid, is a central part of building an EIT case correctly.
Why local trial experience matters for an EIT claim specifically
An EIT claim requires proving deliberate employer intent — a fact-intensive standard that depends heavily on discovery, witness credibility, and an attorney’s knowledge of how a Franklin County jury is likely to respond to the evidence in an EIT case. Case-management orders, mediation expectations, and trial-scheduling cadence vary across Franklin County judges, and EIT cases in particular tend to draw early dispositive-motion practice from employer defense counsel, since the statute is written to be difficult to satisfy. Plaintiffs’ counsel with in-depth knowledge of EIT and regular Franklin County trial experience is especially valuable in this narrow category of case.
Plevin & Gallucci’s Position on Columbus-Area EIT Claims
A Columbus-area catastrophic workplace injury should never be evaluated for workers’ compensation alone. In many cases, the same fact pattern — a warehouse worker injured when a conveyor guard had been deliberately removed, for example — can involve a workers’ comp claim, a VSSR claim for the underlying safety violation, an employer intentional tort analysis under ORC § 2745.01, and a product liability claim against the equipment manufacturer if the guard was defectively designed. Evaluating only one of these leaves recovery — and accountability — on the table.
Two of the four governing Ohio Supreme Court decisions interpreting ORC § 2745.01 — Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co. and Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc. — were litigated by Plevin & Gallucci attorneys David R. Grant and Frank Gallucci. That firsthand experience with how Ohio courts apply the safety-guard and deliberate-intent standards guides how our Columbus team evaluates EIT matters for injured workers across central Ohio.
Our Columbus team draws on the same firm-wide EIT trial history described in our guide to employer intentional tort claims in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, which covers the firm’s broader record under R.C. 2745.01 in more detail.
What most people get wrong
Many injured Columbus workers assume that filing a workers’ comp claim forecloses any other legal action against their employer. It does not automatically foreclose an EIT claim — but it also doesn’t automatically create one. An EIT claim exists only in the narrow set of circumstances described above, and most workplace injuries, even serious ones, do not qualify. The two claims can run in parallel specifically when there’s evidence of deliberate safety guard removal or deliberate misrepresentation of a hazardous substance — not simply because an injury was severe or an employer was careless.
Our recommendation
If you were seriously injured at a Franklin County or Central Ohio warehouse, construction site, manufacturing plant, or healthcare facility — particularly if a safety guard was missing, disabled, or you were exposed to a substance you weren’t warned about — consult an attorney before giving a recorded statement to your employer’s insurance carrier. The Columbus office at 2323 W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 240 offers free consultations and can be reached at 614-276-8959 or 1-855-4-PLEVIN.
— The Plevin & Gallucci Team
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue my employer for a workplace injury in Columbus, Ohio?
In most cases, Ohio workers’ compensation is your exclusive remedy. The narrow exception is an Employer Intentional Tort claim under ORC § 2745.01, available if your employer acted with deliberate intent to injure, deliberately removed an equipment safety guard, or deliberately misrepresented a toxic or hazardous substance. Franklin County EIT lawsuits are filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
I was hurt at an Intel construction site or a New Albany data center. Does the Columbus office handle EIT claims there?
Yes. The Columbus office handles workplace injury and EIT matters throughout central Ohio — including Franklin, Licking, Delaware, Fairfield, Madison, Pickaway, and Union Counties — and, together with our Dayton office, across the Miami Valley in Montgomery, Miami, Clark, Greene, Warren, Butler, Preble, and Darke Counties. Cases from those counties are generally filed in the appropriate county’s court of common pleas.
How long do I have to file an EIT claim in Columbus?
An EIT lawsuit generally must be filed within two years of the date of injury under ORC § 2305.10. This is separate from the shorter one-year deadline to file the underlying workers’ compensation claim, so prompt consultation is important.
My employer was careless — is that enough for an EIT claim?
No. Ordinary negligence — or even recklessness — is not enough. ORC § 2745.01 requires deliberate intent: proof that the employer acted with the specific intent to injure, or within the narrow presumptions for deliberately removing an equipment safety guard or deliberately misrepresenting a toxic or hazardous substance. That high bar is exactly why a Columbus-area workplace injury should be evaluated carefully rather than assumed to qualify.
