Bill Overruling Ohio Supreme Court Decision and Clarifying Law as to Respondeat Superior Claims Signed into Law

by Brianna Prislipsky, Esq.

The Ohio General Assembly recently passed House Bill 179, which simultaneously addresses the application of the claim-tolling statute in R.C. 2305.15 and clarifies the application of vicarious liability in the context of professional liability. House Bill 179 was signed by Governor DeWine on July 25, 2024. 

The first portion of House Bill 179 addresses the application of the claim tolling statute in R.C. 2305.15, which extends the applicable statute of limitations when a defendant is out of state or attempts to conceal themselves or avoid service. This is in response to a December 2022 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court, Elliot v. Durrani, 2022-Ohio-4190.  In Elliot, the Court concluded that the period of time a defendant is out of the country can be used to toll the running of the statute of repose.  House Bill 179 vitiates the Elliot decision and inserts language into the statute clarifying that the tolling statute does not apply to the medical claim statute of repose, or any other statute of repose contained within the Revised Code. 

The latter portion of this bill enacts R.C. 2307.241, a provision addressing vicarious liability. The newly enacted R.C. 2307.241 provides that, in the context of a vicarious liability relationship, an injured party may bring suit against either the primarily liable agent, the secondarily liable principal, or both.  The statute further provides that the primarily liable agent is not a necessary party to any tort action brought against the secondarily liable principal, meaning that an employer, master, or principal may be sued for the conduct of its agent regardless of whether suit is also brought against the employee, servant, or agent, and vice versa.

The statute creates an exception, however, in cases of professional liability, including actions brought against attorneys, physicians, podiatrists, dentists, and chiropractors, in which case the primarily liable party (the attorney, physician, etc.) would then be a necessary party to the action. 

This newly enacted statute clarifies the application of vicarious liability following the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-4154, which called into question whether other healthcare professionals, such as nurses, technicians, or aides were necessary parties to personal injury claims. Given the language utilized by the General Assembly, it is likely that the application of this provision will be applicable prospectively and will not impact pending cases.

Going forward, plaintiffs bringing legal, medical, or dental malpractice claims can still pursue claims of direct liability against the individual employee, agent, or servant. Plaintiffs may also pursue vicarious medical malpractice claims against hospitals or similar entities for the negligence of non-physician employees or agents without having to also name the individual employees.

This Bill was passed with unanimous, bipartisan support and was sponsored by State Representatives Adam Mathews and Brian Stewart.

If you have any questions regarding House Bill 179, please contact one of our Medical Malpractice Practice Group members.