Personal Injury Law

Ohio Supreme Court ruling upholds tort reform caps on personal injury damages

By Brian F. LaBovick, Esq.

The Ohio Supreme Court gave their ruling yesterday in the  Arbino vs. Johnson & Johnson, Slip Opinion 2007 -Ohio 6948.  The ruling was 6-2  upholding a 2004 law approved by the legislature that caps jury awards for non-economic (pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc.) to $350,000 unless there is a loss of limb or organ. The court found the law to be constitutional and does not violate consumer rights, right to jury, or separation of powers.  The case before the court was brought by Melissa Arbino for a product-liability suit against  Johnson & Johnson for side effects from using the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch. Surprisingly,  the patch is still on the market, but with warnings about the serious side effects.

John Michael Spinelli, gives a brilliant outline of both sides of the arguments, in his post on Daily Kos entitled "Ohio Supreme’ Ruling Good for Bad Bills, Bad for Good Juries". One point that he drives home in the post is that the ruling came from an all-Republican Supreme Court. One could gather from his clever intro "the best Republican Supreme Court money can buy" that he has strong feelings on this subject.

Chief Justice Moyer, writing for the majority opinion, states "The decision in this case affirms the General Assembly’s efforts over the last several decades to enact meaningful tort reforms. It also places Ohio firmly with the growing number of states that have found such reforms to be constitutional. However, the issue remains a contentious one across the nation, with several states finding such statutes unconstitutional."

Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the dissenting opinion states "Instead of jealously safeguarding the right to trial by jury, the majority opinion in this case eviscerates it by holding constitutional a statute that enables courts to ‘enter judgments in disregard of the jury’s verdict.’ Instead of jealously safeguarding the right to trial by jury, the majority opinion employs shallow reasoning and shoddy logic in concluding that juries can meaningfully determine only facts that do not conflict with predetermined assessments of the General Assembly. Instead of jealously safeguarding the right to trial by jury, the majority opinion "cleans the scalpel for the legislature to cut away unrestrainedly at the whole field of tort redress."

This case sends a resounding message to the legal community that the issue of tort reform will continue to be hotly debated.  The Ohio Supreme Court ruling will no doubt add fuel to the tort reform discussion.  Those in favor of tort reform, just received a check mark in their column with this decision.  One can only hope that this does not give corporations a false sense of security in future product liability cases.

Johnson & Johnson stock is trading at $67.43, yesterday, the day of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling,  it closed at $67.33.

To read more on this story, check out the following articles: Daily KOS, The Toledo Blade, Ohio State Supreme Court Slip Opinion No2007 -Ohio 6948

Full post as published by LaBovick Injury Law Blog on December 28, 2007 (boomark / email).