Personal Injury Law

Limits on Injury Lawsuits

We have previously discussed the unfairness of placing arbitrary limits on injury lawsuits. These limits or ?caps? in injury lawsuits involving children, elderly and stay-at-home mothers work the greatest hardships. As Orlando injury lawyers we believe that jurors who listen to all the evidence are well-qualified to decide what, if any, damages are fair for the injury involved.

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a state law Thursday that limits how much a person
injured by a defective product can collect in non-economic damages, reversing its stance. The lawsuit involved the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch made by New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson. The woman who brought the lawsuit claimed the product caused her permanent physical damage and threatened her ability to have children, and her lawyer argued that limits on damages were unconstitutional.

The majority opinion in the 5-2 ruling, written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, said the Ohio law did not violate the constitutional rights of injured parties to trial by jury, to a remedy for their injuries or to due process and equal protection. Of course, the decision has been praised by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation who had joined in urging the court to uphold the law. Obviously, corporate interests want to protect profits and not the people who may be harmed by dangerous products.

Full post as published by Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog on January 16, 2008 (boomark / email).