On January 6, 2005, Governor Taft signed into law Senate Bill 80. This legislation took effect on April 7, 2005. An exact date was not yet set when this publication went to press. This bill is the third attempt by the Ohio Legislature to enact substantial changes to Ohio ’s legal system. This legislation is very ambitious and its impact will likely be felt on every conceivable type of tort claim ranging from product liability claims, to medical malpractice, to auto accident claims, just to name a few.
Key points of this legislation include damages, elimination of certain types of tort claims, and a reworking of key evidentiary rules.
Although this legislation is lengthy and detailed, the following is a summary of some of the more critical aspects of it.
- R.C. 1533.18 has been expanded to include private property owners as protected persons.
- This statute’s protection from liability may now apply, in certain instances,
even if the plaintiff paid a fee to use the premises.
- A plaintiff cannot bring suit in an Ohio court on a claim accruing in another state or country, where the statute of limitations to bring the claim within that state or country has already expired.
- A good example of the effectiveness of this statute would be where a plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall in Kentucky , but chose to file their suit in Ohio because the property owner had some jurisdictional tie to Ohio . Kentucky has a one-year statute of limitations for premises liability claims, whereas Ohio has a two-year statute. This legislation conclusively precludes a plaintiff’s ability to bring such a claim in Ohio after the expiration of the statute of limitations in Kentucky .
- Per R.C. 2305.10, there is a two-year statute of limitations for injuries or deaths stemming from a product liability claim.
- A limited discovery rule is in place which modifies the statute of limitations to two years from the date the injury was discovered, subject to an extensive list of criteria.
- R.C. 2305.131 implements a ten-year statute of repose for premises liability claims against contractors, architects, builders, or others involved in the construction, renovation, or improvement of property. If the injury occurs more than ten years after the work in question, a plaintiff is precluded from bringing a claim against this class of persons or companies.
- It is critical to note this statute’s protection does not extend to property owners.
- R.C. 2305.36 bars claims by consumers against restaurants, suppliers, and others involved in the food industry for what are termed as “cumulative consumption” claims. A customer still has a right to sue a restaurant for a particular incident, but restaurants and related industries are now protected from claims for obesity, weight gain, etc. by customers.
- R.C. 2307.711 substantially overhauls Ohio law on product liability claims. All common law product liability claims are eliminated.
- Assumption of risk has been expanded as a defense. Under certain circumstances, it can serve as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s claim, without the need for engaging in any type of comparative fault analysis. In other instances, it is a defense, subject to a calculation of liability by the trier of fact.
- R.C. 2315.18 addresses caps on compensatory damages. Even with this new legislation, there are no caps on economic damages. Non-economic damages are capped at $250,000.00, or three times the amount of economic damages, with an absolute maximum of $350,000.00 per plaintiff or $500,000.00 for a particular occurrence. Exceptions do exist for these caps for particular types of circumstances including loss of limbs, significant permanent disabilities, etc. Juries are not instructed as to the existence of these caps, and their verdicts are to be adjusted afterward, if need be, to conform with the caps. These caps do not apply to claims against any governmental entity, as these claims continue to be covered by R.C. 2744 et seq.
- R.C. 2315.21 regulates and imposes caps on punitive damages. A defendant now has an absolute right to bifurcate a trial where punitive damages are being claimed. The statute makes it very clear this bifurcation restricts the interjection of evidence which may somehow inflame a jury against a particular defendant. Punitive damages will generally be limited to one to two times the amount of compensatory damages. In a case of a small employer or private individual, punitive damages are capped at two times the amount of compensatory damages, or ten (10%) percent of the defendant’s net worth.
R.C. 2315.19 gives a Court the discretion to review and lower an excessive jury verdict upon the meeting of certain criteria.
Evidence that all or some of the plaintiff’s economic damages where paid by a collateral source (health insurance, disability insurance, or some other type of benefits), are now admissible, so long as the collateral source has no right of subrogation.
Where a defendant interjects evidence of a collateral source payment, a plaintiff is allowed to present evidence of any premiums they paid for that particular collateral source.
R.C. 2323.51 expands the definition of a frivolous lawsuit along with potential sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorneys for bringing such actions.
R.C. 4513.263 allows a defendant to interject evidence that a plaintiff was not wearing their seatbelt, and the failure to wear a seatbelt resulted in the injuries being more severe than they would have been otherwise. This is not a liability defense. but a defense on the issue of damages.
This is only a summary of some of the most noteworthy aspects of the legislation. The statutes are very detailed and we encourage you if you have any questions regarding this legislation or its impact, to contact us at any time. There are certainly major litigation in the years to come addressing the constitutionality of this new legislation.
