Ohio’s most recent version of “tort reform” legislation (S.B. 80) was enacted by the General Assembly in 2004 and went into effect on April 7, 2005. On December 27, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld two provisions of that legislation in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson (2007), 2007-Ohio-6948.
Melisa Arbino brought a products liability claim against Johnson & Johnson, claiming that she suffered personal injuries as the proximate result of her use of the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.
This Court addresses two specific statutes that were enacted as part of S.B. 80: R.C. 2315.18 and R.C. 2315.21. R.C. 2315.18 limits the amount of non-economic damages that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a personal injury action to the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of economic damages awarded to the same plaintiff based on the same injuries, up to an absolute maximum of $350,000, or $500,000 per single occurrence.
R.C. 2315.18 makes an exception to these limits for individuals who suffer “[p]ermanent and substantial deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system,” or “[p]ermanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life-sustaining activities.”
R.C. 2315.21 limits the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff against a defendant to two times the amount of the plaintiff’s compensatory damages from
that same defendant. If the limitations apply, punitive damages may be limited further if the defendant is a “small employer” or individual. Further, “punitive damages may not be awarded more than once against the same defendant for the same act or course of conduct once the maximum amount of damages has been reached.”
R.C. 2315.21 makes an exception to these limits “if the defendant committed a felony in causing the injury, one of the elements of the felony is that it was committed purposely or knowingly, and the defendant was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the felony.”
Melisa Arbino claimed that these statutes violated her rights under the Ohio Constitution; specifically, her right to a trial by jury, her right to due process, her right to a remedy, her right to an open court, and her right to equal protection. She also claimed that the enacted statutes violated “the separation of powers among the three branches of government, particularly between the legislative and judicial branches.”
The Supreme Court disagreed and held that each statute is constitutional on its face, upholding both R.C. 2315.18 and R.C. 2315.21. Caps on non-economic damages and caps on punitive damages live on. In this respect, the Supreme Court’s decision is great news for personal injury defendants in Ohio.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that it had declared unconstitutional every prior version of “tort reform” legislation enacted by the
General Assembly since 1975, that was “similar in language and purpose” to the statutes reviewed in this case.
The Supreme Court noted, however, that it “will not apply stare decisis to strike down legislation enacted by the General Assembly merely because it is similar to previous enactments that were deemed unconstitutional.”
According to the Supreme Court, “the General Assembly has made progress in tailoring its ‘tort reform’ legislation to address the constitutional defects identified by the various majorities of this [C]ourt.” Additionally, the General Assembly’s enactment of S.B. 80 was a direct response to evidence “that the uncertainty and subjectivity associated with the civil justice system was harming the state’s economy.”
A third challenged statute, dealing with the admissibility of evidence about a plaintiff’s recovery from collateral sources, was not addressed by the Court because it found that Melisa Arbino lacked standing to challenge this statute.
Surely, other challenges to “tort reform” will follow this one. Hopefully, this decision serves as a barometer for the Supreme Court’s response to these challenges, with continued great news for personal injury defendants in Ohio.
For more information regarding this decision, or with any other questions, please contact one of our Attorneys.
