|
Different Time Limit For Refiling Wrongful Death Claims Does Not Violate Plaintiff's Equal Protection Rights
In May 2009 the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision holding that Ohio's statute governing the refiling of previously dismissed wrongful death claims -- which
provides a different time limit than for refiling other civil actions -- does not violate the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-1970
Different Time Limit For Refiling Wrongful Death Claims Does Not Violate Plaintiff's Equal Protection Rights
Bricker & Eckler bulletin discussing the case
See Ohio Supreme Court Rules in Two
Challenges to Tort Reform 2007-2008
Constitutional Challenges to Ohio's New Tort Reform Law Decided In
Ohio Supreme Court
Two significant cases have been decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, both of which presented constitutional challenges to Ohio's 2005
Ohio tort reform law, S.B. 80.
See Ohio Supreme Court Rules in Two
Challenges to Tort Reform 2007-2008
Ohio Senate Bill 80's Statute of Repose for Real Property Held Constitutional
On March 21, 2008, Ohio's Second District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of
Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.131, which sets a ten-year statute of repose for improvements to real property.
In McClure v. Alexander, 2008-Ohio-1313, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing a claim brought against a contractor for allegedly defective construction that had been completed eighteen years earlier.
The case arose as a result of work completed by the defendant/appellee, Mike Alexander Construction, to plaintiff/appellant Robert
McClure’s home in June of 1989. In August of 2004, McClure discovered that water damage had caused his walls to rot. In August of 2007,
McClure filed suit against Alexander. Alexander moved to dismiss on the basis that McClure’s claims were barred by
S.B. 80's ten-year statute of repose applicable to improvements to real property -- R.C. 2305.131. McClure argued that R.C. 2305.131 violated his
constitutional right to a remedy, basing his argument on Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 460, in which the Ohio
Supreme Court found a prior version of R.C. 2305.131 to be unconstitutional. McClure argued that the current version of R.C. 2305.131 was
sufficiently similar to the version of R.C. 2305.131 considered in Brennaman, that it should be found unconstitutional for the same reasons.
The trial court disagreed and McClure appealed.
While the appeal was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in an unrelated case, Groch v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 2008-Ohio-546. In Groch, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of S.B. 80's statute of repose for
product liability actions reviewed its earlier decisions addressing statutes of repose, including Brennaman. The Groch Court narrowed its ruling in
Brennaman, but did not overrule Brennaman. McClure argued that the reasoning in Brennaman
was still sound, was not overruled, and should be applied to the current version of R.C. 2305.131.
The Second District Court of Appeals, after carefully considering the Court's analysis in Groch, found that the current version of R.C. 2305.131 was
sufficiently different from the predecessor statute considered in Brennaman.
As April 14, 2008, McClure had not sought a discretionary appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, but still has time to do so.
If you have any questions about this case or other provisions of Senate Bill 80, please contact
Anne Marie Sferra or Miranda Motter for additional information.
Public Nuisance Litigation Appears in Ohio
In December of 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 117 to clarify, among other things,
that Ohio’s Product Liability Act has abrogated all common law product liability claims, including those
characterized as public nuisance claims. In large part, these provisions of S.B. 117 simply clarified
and reiterated provisions passed in 2005 in Senate Bill 80 (see below).
Nonetheless, S.B. 117 has been the center of several highly charged pieces of litigation. Public nuisance
litigation, and S.B. 117 itself, are likely to remain pivotal in the coming years.
For an update on S.B. 117, see
Senate Bill 117 Litigation.
For more information and resources in this growing area of law, please visit the
Public Nuisance
Litigation Resource Center.
Ohio Slips in Evaluation of Tort Liability System
Ohio fell from 19th to 24th in Lawsuit Climate 2007: Ranking the States, an annual study by the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. The study states that "Ohio’s legal system is headed in the wrong direction. The plaintiffs’ bar has
teamed up with a handful of elected officials to attempt to rewrite the ground rules for product liability lawsuits, essentially denying businesses the
opportunity to mount a fair defense."
The annual study, conducted by the nonpartisan polling firm Harris Interactive, evaulates 12 different factors that
affect a state’s tort liability system. These factors range from a company’s perception of the overall treatment of tort and
contract litigation to judges’ competence and impartiality. The full study is available on the
Institute's website.
New Tort Reform Changes Ohio’s Legal Climate
On April 7, 2005, Ohio’s legal climate changed significantly when Senate Bill 80, a new tort reform law, became effective. Senate Bill 80 passed the Ohio General Assembly in December and was signed by Governor Bob Taft in January. This comprehensive piece of legislation makes significant reforms to our legal system and ensures that both plaintiffs and defendants are treated fairly in the courts.
Key provisions of Senate Bill 80 include:
Limitations on the amount of punitive damages recoverable from both large and small employers Limitations on the amount of non-economic damages recoverable for non-catastrophic losses Statutes of repose for both product and construction-related claims Modifications to Ohio’s collateral source rule Successor liability protection for certain asbestos-related claims Immunity for certain property owners Immunity from obesity claims
Senate Bill 80 also provides a number of additional reforms ranging from eliminating the consumer expectation test as a stand-alone test for certain product liability claims to permitting non-use of seat belt evidence in tort actions to mitigate non-economic damages.
Bricker & Eckler serves as Legal Counsel to the Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice (OACJ), a coalition comprised of representatives of more than 200 Ohio trade and professional associations, small and large businesses, medical groups, insurers, farmers, non-profit organizations and local government associations for a combined representation of more than 400,000 individuals and businesses. The OACJ was founded in the mid-1980s to stop lawsuit abuse and promote a common sense civil justice system in
Ohio.
Available Resources on Ohio Tort Reform
Litigation News
Ohio's 2005 Tort Reform Law -- S.B. 80
Asbestos, Silica and Mixed Dust
Other Ohio Legislation on Tort Reform
Attorney Contacts for Tort Reform
|
