Synopsis II, 1 Running Head: Synopsis II

Synopsis II Renata Luzny University of Utah

Mary Sara wells Ph.D. University of Utah

Synopsis II, 2 Running Head: Synopsis II

Case: Timothy L. Ulrick, and his family, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. Norm Kunz, Defendant, and Ahal Contracting Company, Inc., Defendant Appellee No. 09-3327, October 22, 2009, Filed Case Summary Ground for legal case: Mr. Timothy Ulrick, an employee plaintiff, and his family, sued Mr. Norm Kunz, supervisor, and Ahal Contracting Company, Inc, employer- defendant, for the intentional tort. The plaintiff asserted a claim that he was physically attacked by his supervisor, Mr. Kunz, an employee of Ahal Contractor Company, Inc, the defendant. Mr. Kunz has had a violent work history about which the Ahal Contractor Company was well aware of. Compendium: Mr. Ulrick was attacked by his coworker Mr. Kunz, while completeing tasks in the same working area. There is evidence about three other cases of Mr. Kunzs previous involvement with the other employees. According to the district court, the Plaintiffs proof of intentional tort from Ahal Contraction Company was insufficient. Under the Ohio common law, the so called Fyffe test, the employer would have to be substantially certain of danger. The plaintiff appealed to a higher court, which actually affirmed the district courts verdict.

Synopsis II, 3 Running Head: Synopsis II

Outcome: The court affirmed the judgment of the employer according to the Ohio common law, therefore there was insufficient proof of substantial certainty of any danger of becoming injured. Facts: On the morning of October 16, 2006, Mr. Ulrick, a carpenter who worked in the same project area as his supervisor Mr. Kunz; who had already been working for Ahal Co. for seven years. Ulrick does not recall any previous interactions with Kunz prior to the accident. According to Ulrick , while he was working that morning with a 4-by-5 foot metal wrecking bar, he was attacked by Kunz who took the bar from Ulrick and hit him with it in the leg. Disagreement over whether the certain job should or should not be done by the carpenters ended up with a violent act. Notes: The Ohios worker compensation laws practically disable employees to receive any compensation for their injuries from their employer. This law arranges an exclusive compensation. There is as well a common law for intentional torts, in which the intention and substantial certainty must be proven. Demonstration of such certainty should based on the employers knowledge about any upcoming threat. According to the written documentation, Kunz had been previously involved in a physical confrontation with other workers at least three times. Ahal Contracting Co. provided a

Synopsis II, 4 Running Head: Synopsis II violation report and a written note to Kunz about the conditions under which he could work for the company; otherwise he would risk his termination.

Action: In order to sue and file the case, all four elements of negligence have to be reached. According to the plaintiff the first element, duty, was violated by failing the legal obligation of the employer to keep their workers safe. The employer failed to meet their legal and moral obligations to act against and prevent any foreseeable danger, therefore the second element, breach, was met. The third element, cause, resulted in the physical attack between employees. Consequently, the employees injury is the last element, actual loss or damage to the employee. Opinion: Was the tort in this case really intentional? The courts decision, according to the legislative procedure was legally right. No intentional tort was imposed against Ulrick. Unfortunately, the Ohios common law Fyffe test did not work in the plaintiffs favor either. According to the court, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a substantial certainty of intentional harm. I assumed, after thoroughly reading the case, that Mr. Ulrick tried to get not only compensation from his employer, but as well to point out the apparent unresolved hostile situation at the work place. I agree that employer cannot be substantially certain about what will happen in the future and did not intentionally injure anyone. However, I strongly disagree that

Synopsis II, 5 Running Head: Synopsis II employer did not have any knowledge about the foreseeable danger and was not able to prevent it. I am wondering if in this case, the unpleasant result for plaintiff was due to an imperfect law, an incorrect charge, or just a bad choice of lawyer.

Application for my future Future Job: My main concern as a future hotel manger or owner of a small business would be to handle the operation as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately, interactions between employees are one of the most important aspects. In the case of handling a legal issue, a good choice of lawyer could be crucial as well. Ideally, a good approach to prevent the situation such as in Mr. Ulricks case, would be not to underestimate any employees interactions. Listen carefully to what each employee has to say. As well as when an employee repeatedly violates the company or moral rules, and take action and terminate any problem causing employee as soon as possible. As an employer, be aware of your legal and moral obligations towards your employees. Be aware and build up a business-relationship with a good lawyer as well. I have learned a valuable lesson from this case. Being prepared for any situation could prevent a lot of troubles. As a manager or even as an employee, be well versed and aware of all your legal and moral rights and practice them actively.