In Fyffe v. Jeno's Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, the injured party was a sanitation employee whose job duties actually included cleaning machinery in the Jeno's plant. See Fyffe, 59 Ohio St.3d at 119. On the night Fyffe was injured, he was instructed by his supervisors to clean the conveyor system which ultimately caused his injuries. Id. Further, Fyffe testified that it was common practice to reach into the conveyor belt to retrieve objects, that sanitation employees were trained to do just that, and that the conduct was sanctioned by Jeno's because it was faster to clean the machines with them running. Id. Fyffe's testimony was corroborated to an extent by Jeno's safety manager when he "stated that the conveyors were cleaned while they were running 'because they clean faster that way.'" Id. In Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, the Ohio Supreme Court held that in order to establish "intent" for the purpose of proving the existence of an intentional tort committed by an employer against an employee, the following must be demonstrated: "(1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subject by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty; and (3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task." Id., at paragraph one of the syllabus. Proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established. Id., at paragraph two of the syllabus. In addition, "a dangerous condition, as defined in the employer intentional tort doctrine, must be something beyond the natural hazard of employment." Burkey v. Farris (June 30, 2000), Tuscarawas App.No. 1999P030015, 2000 Ohio App, citing Taulbee v. Adience, Inc., BMI Div. (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 11, 17, 696 N.E.2d 625. In Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, the Supreme Court of Ohio announced the test for an employer intentional tort as follows: "In order to establish 'intent' for the purpose of proving the existence of an intentional tort committed by an employer against his employee, the following must be demonstrated: (1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty; and (3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. A common law employer intentional tort is analyzed under the factors set forth in Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108: "In order to establish "intent" for the purpose of proving the existence of an intentional tort committed by an employer against his employee, the following must be demonstrated: (1) knowledge by the employer of the existence of a dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition within its business operation; (2) knowledge by the employer that if the employee is subjected by his employment to such dangerous process, procedure, instrumentality or condition, then harm to the employee will be a substantial certainty; and (3) that the employer, under such circumstances, and with such knowledge, did act to require the employee to continue to perform the dangerous task." Fyffe, supra. at paragraph one of the syllabus. In Fyffe, the Court explained: "To establish an intentional tort of an employer, proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established. Where the employer acts despite his knowledge of some risk, his conduct may be negligence. As the probability increases that particular consequences may follow, then the employer's conduct may be characterized as recklessness. As the probability that the consequences will follow further increases, and the employer knows that injuries to employees are certain or substantially certain to result from the process, procedure or condition and he still proceeds, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. However, the mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk -- something short of substantial certainty -- is not intent." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. The Court further explained that, "acts of the employer that are termed a 'high risk' of harm, or 'where the risk is great' could, in most instances, correctly be viewed as acts of recklessness. However, in a given instance, and within a certain fact pattern, such acts could equate to one that is substantially certain to result in harm to the employee, and reasonably raise a justiciable issue of an intentional tort." Id. at 117.