Daniel Matusicky | Kohrman Jackson & Krantz
An recent Ohio appellate court decision reinforces a critical point for plaintiffs and a crucial defense strategy for defendants: if you don’t properly and timely name individual employees/agents in a lawsuit, you may lose your claim against their employer.
Case Overview
In Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serv. Inc., an employee of a general contractor sued a subcontractor alleging that he sustained injuries after slipping on a glue and cleaning solution applied by the subcontractor’s agent. Following the application of the chemical solution, the subcontractor’s agent left the area unattended. Plaintiff entered the room and slipped on the solution, sustaining severe injuries to his left knee that required two surgeries and extensive physical therapy.
In the initial Complaint, the plaintiff failed to personally name the subcontractor’s agent who applied the solution. Rather, he asserted claims against his employer, the subcontractor, and a “John Doe . . employee or agent.” Including unnamed entities and individuals, employing the “John Doe” placeholder is a common litigation practice, often employed to preserve potential claims against unknown actors who may be liable to Plaintiff for damages. As explained further below, the Badra-Muniz decision emphasizes the need to specifically name any potential defendants in a timely manner.
Dismissal of Claims
The Parties engaged in discovery for approximately one year, including taking the deposition of the subcontractor’s agent. Following discovery, the subcontractor filed a motion for summary judgment. While the motion for summary judgment was pending, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which was not served upon the employee until after the expiration of the application statute of limitations. The subcontractor’s agent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the claims against him were time-barred. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the subcontractor’s agent. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.
The subcontractor then filed supplemental briefing on its motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims against it should be dismissed. Relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians, LLC, the trial court held that because the claims against the agent were time-barred, the subcontractor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its agent.
Appellate Court Decision
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that vicarious liability claims should still proceed against the employer. The Second District Court of Appeals disagreed, extending the Ohio Supreme Court’s Clawson decision beyond professional negligence cases and making it clear: if an employee isn’t properly named in time, the employer can’t be held liable either.
Key Takeaways
While Ohio’s legislature attempted to address this issue with House Bill 179, its protections don’t apply retroactively. That means businesses and individuals facing vicarious liability claims—or those pursuing them—must act strategically and timely.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.