Business Law

Liability for Acts of Drunk After Serving Him or Her Liquor
The Ohio Supreme court summarized the law in a 2001 case. Click here for the court's excellent summary of the law along with the complete text of Revised Code Section 4399.18 as of July 1, 2010. Full article here.

Workers' Citizenship / Immigration Status
President Bush signed an Executive Order on June 6, 2008 requiring federal contractors to confirm that their employees can legally work in the United States. The Homeland Security Department is operating a web-based E-Verify system. (Click on link.)

Secretary Michael Chernoff states that 1,000 employers a week are signing up to use the system. Chernoff claims that the Order will affect hundreds of thousands of workers and potentially millions.

Most employees currently fill out I-9 forms and submit accompany documents to employers who determine whether the worker has met federal requirements. With the E-Verify system, employers enter a name and social security number into a computer using the internet.

E-Verify checks government data bases to confirm the legitimacy of the number and name that were submitted. Chernoff claims 99.5% accuracy with response time of two days.

Business groups claim that the system is a burden on employers and that there will be misidentification of workers. There is also the question of whether an employer who is not a federal contractor violates employee privacy by doing more than conforming with the established I-9 procedure.

Business Court
The Ohio Supreme Court has issues temporary rules for commercial dockets in the Ohio common pleas courts. Franklin County in Columbus, Ohio, will set up a commercial docket effective January 1, 2009. Dowload the Supreme Court's temporary rules in pdf format. The rule lists categories of cases within the jurisdiciton of the commercial dockets and categories that are specifically excluded. Update: Judge Richard A. Frye has been assigned to the commercial docket in Franklin County. (Editorial aside: An excellent choice in our opinion.)

Ohio’s Minimum Wage Amendments
Effective January 1, 2007, Ohio’s Constitution features a new minimum wage for all employers. The minimum wage will be indexed to the consumer price index, but the precise mechanism is, at best, unclear. Employers must keep records and make them available to the employee or to a person acting on the employee’s behalf upon request. There are severe penalties for noncompliance with the minimum wage. Employees have a right to recover three times any back wage underpayments and collect attorneys’ fees. Employers will have no right to collect attorneys' fees unless the employee's suit is found to be frivolous. If an employer is found to have retaliated against an employee for questioning the wage rates, the courts are required to award an amount sufficient to deter future misconduct at a minimum rate of $150 per day. An employer who appeals an adverse decision cannot get a stay of judgment on appeal.

Contractual Attorneys' Fee Provision
In Columbus Check Cashers Inc. v. Rodgers, 2008-Ohio-5498, the Franklin County Court of Appeals refused to award attorneys' fees to a check cashing company despite its customer agreement stating that attorneys' fees would be awarded in any collection action. A contractual attorneys' fee provision in Ohio is unenforceable in situations where there is unequal bargaining power, where the provision promotes litigation and illegal acts such as evading the usury laws, where the provision acts as a penalty, and where the terms of the provision are not freely negotiable. The court refused to enforce a one-sided obligation on the part of the consumer to pay attorneys' fees, because the provision obviously worked as penalty and its one sided, creditor-favored nature promoted litigation.

Piercing the Corporate Veil
In Winegar v. Creekside Crossing Home Sales, 2008-Ohio-5835 the Fifth District court of appeals reversed a jury verdict finding a corporate officer personally liable for poor construction workmanship. The plaintiff's argued that the officer had failed to identify the corporate capacity in which he was acting. The court explained the law as follows:

Generally, a corporate officer will not be held individually liable on any contracts, either written or oral, which are entered into on behalf of the corporation. O'Neill v. United States (D.C.Ohio 1968), 281 F.Supp. 359; Centennial Ins. Co. of New York v. Vic Tanny Internatl. of Toledo, Inc. (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 137. Two limited exceptions, however, remove a corporate officer from the protection of the corporate fiction and will allow a finding of individual liability: 1) piercing the "corporate veil," Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Gen. Prod. (C.A.6, 1981), 643 F.2d 413; and 2) the failure of a corporate officer to identify the corporate capacity in which he is dealing with regard to a specific business transaction, Spicer v. James (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 222; Boutell v. Patriarch Computers and Copiers (Dec. 2, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64149, unreported.

Letter of Intent / Commitment
In Champion Gym & Fitness, Inc. v. Crotty, 2008-Ohio-5642, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment holding that there were genuine issues of fact whether the conditions of a "commitment letter" were met and sufficient to constitute a binding contract. In Ohio, an agreement to agree is not always unenforceable as a contract. The buyer of a fitness business attempted to cancel the purchase of a business after signing a commitment letter and making a $40,000 down payment. There was a genuine issue of fact whether the buyer had successfully negotiated a new lease with the landlord for the business which was a condition of the commitment letter. The lesson: a document that is intended as a letter of intent may be binding without appropriate qualifying language.

Piercing Corporate Veil
In Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 506, 2008-Ohio-4827, the Ohio Supreme Court modified the so-called Belvedere test for when it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil and impose liabilty on shareholders or officers set forth in Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 274, 617 N.E.2d 1075. Dombrosoki sued the parent insurance company for bad faith in denying certain treatment the insurer deamed "investigational." Although the court refused to allow the corporate veil to be pierced in this case, the court modified the second prong of the Belvedere test to make is somewhat easier to pierce corporate veils. The Belvedere test now is: The corporate form may be disregarded and individual shareholders held liable for wrongs committed by the corporation when (1) control over the corporation by those to be held liable was so complete that the corporation has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, (2) control over the corporation in such a manner as to commit fraud, an illegal act, or a similarly unlawful act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, and (3) injury or unjust loss resulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong." All three prongs of the test must be met for piercing to occur.

Punitive Damages -- Liability of Employer
If an employee driving a truck causes an accident and leaves the scene of the accident, can the employer be held liable for punitive damages based upon the acts of the employee? In Estate of Beavers v. Knapp, 175 Ohio App.3d 758, 2008-Ohio-2023, a truck driver making a turn saw a motorcycle lose control and start sliding under the semi trailer. The truck driver panicked and sped up, running over the cyclist, and leaving the scene of the accident. The driver later falsely denied that he had been involved in the accident. On learning about the accident in the newspaper, the employer ordered the employee back into town to talk to the police and fired the employee upon learning of the employee's conduct. A jury awarded punitive damages against the employee and separate punitive damages against the employer. The Franklin County Court of Appeals held that the employee's act of leaving the scene of the accident and covering up supported an award of punitive damages; however, without some participation or ratification by the employer, the employer could not be held liable for punitive damages. The court noted that the employer had a written policy prohibiting employees from leaving the scene of an accident and the employer promptly terminated the employee upon learning of the violation of the policy. The court also noted, however, that some courts of appeal in Ohio, apparently contrary to Ohio Supreme Court authority, have l iberally awarded punitive damages against an employer merely because of wanton, or present, or malicious intent on the part of the employee, particularly if there were any facts suggesting that the employer had ratified the employee's conduct.

Interest on Judgment
The Ohio Supreme Court has now firmly established the principle that a business may not impose an interest rate on unpaid invoices by merely stating an interests rate on the invoice itself. Any interest rate other than the legal rate (set annually by the Ohio Tax commissioner) must the established by a contract agreed by the parties. The Court rejected the lower courts' rulings that an interest rate agreement was established by receipt of invoices stating the rate without objection, a procedure that may sometimes establish contract terms in a commercial transaction under the Uniform Commercial Code, RC 1302.10. Minster Farmers Coop. Exchange Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 117 Ohio St. 3d 459, 2008-Ohio-1259. The ruling reversed the contrary cases we previously reported here: Minster Farmers Cooperative Exchange Company, Inc. v. Meyer (3d Dist. App.), 2006–Ohio–1886, and Minister Farmers Cooperative Exchange Company, Inc. v. Dues(3rd Dist. App.), 2006–Ohio–1887.

Cognovit Judgment
Harwood v. Weiss (8th Dist. App.), 2005–Ohio–5542, trial court had a duty to vacate a cognovit judgment when there was evidence that the payments on the judgment had been mailed via certified mail, but the checks remained uncashed and the certified mail was returned unclaimed. Defense of payment may be raised as a meritorious defense in a motion seeking relief from a cognovit judgment.

Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer LLC represents small and large businesses in the Columbus, Worthington and all over Ohio.
David W. T. Carroll handles business representation.

Selected Business Law Articles: