ARBINO V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007) CASE BRIEF

ARBINO V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: District Court Judge Katz certified questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. 'Is Ohio Revised Code 2315.18 [limiting noneconomic damages in tort actions], unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?' 'Is Ohio Revised Code 2315.20 [admissibility of collateral-benefit evidence in tort actions], unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?' 'Is Ohio Revised Code 2315.21 [limiting punitive damages in tort actions], unconstitutional on the grounds as stated by the Plaintiffs?'

FACTS: Arbino (P) argues that these statutes violate several provisions of the Ohio Constitution: the right to trial by jury in Section 5, Article I; the right to a remedy and the right to an open court in Section 16, Article I; the right to due process of law in Section 16, Article I; the right to equal protection of the laws in Section 2, Article I; the separation of powers, specifically the prohibition on the General Assembly exercising general judicial powers in Section 32, Article II; and the single-subject rule in Section 15(D), Article II. Prior law has held that a $200,000 cap on general medical-malpractice damages not involving death, with no exceptions for those suffering severe injuries violated the due-process protections of the Ohio Constitution. The court in another case held that a mandatory deduction of collateral benefits violated the right to a jury trial, due process, equal protection, and the right to a remedy. The court next deemed a statute, which required trial courts to order awards of future damages in excess of $200,000 in medical-malpractice actions to be paid in a series of periodic payments upon the motion of any party a violation of the right to a jury trial and of the Due Process Clause of the Ohio Constitution. The court also nixed a statute which required a trial judge to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded in a tort action, even when the trier of fact was a jury. The court also held that modifications of the collateral-source rule in tort actions to require the trier of fact to consider but not automatically set off collateral benefits, laws that capped punitive damages and allowed the trier of fact to determine damages up to the cap in tort and products liability claims and a cap of noneconomic damages at different levels, with higher limits for permanent injuries all in violation of the separation of powers and the single subject clause of the Ohio Constitution.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner