Ohio Supreme Court Strikes Down
Radical Tort 'Reform' Law

On August 16, 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the nation's most extreme law limiting the legal rights of citizens and protecting corporations from liability for their actions. In a 4-3 decision, the Court held that, in enacting what it called "the most comprehensive and multifarious" so-called tort "reform," the Ohio General Assembly attempted to exercise powers that the Ohio Constitution specifically granted only to the state's judiciary.

Richard H. Middleton, Jr., president of the 55,000 member American Association for Justice, hailed the Court's "historic" decision, adding, "It's an enormous victory for the citizens of Ohio, the rule of law, and the separation of powers that is the backbone of our constitutional form of government."

"No special interests, regardless of their political influence, should be able to insulate themselves from responsibility and accountability for the injuries they cause. The independence of the judiciary and the civil justice system must never be compromised. Those bedrock principles were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court today," Middleton said.

Robert S. Peck, AAJ's Senior Director of Legal Affairs and Policy Research who prepared and argued the challenge, said, "The Court's decision ends an attempted hostile takeover of the civil justice system by those interested in avoiding responsibility for the injuries they cause others."

Peck, who, along with Cleveland lawyer Don Iler, argued the case before the Court in September, said, "The Court's decision vindicates the rights and values that went into the drafting of the Ohio Constitution."

"Foremost among those values was the idea that businesses should be held accountable for their wrongdoing and that their ability to wield political influence in the legislature should not permit the justice system to be manipulated to their advantage," said Peck.

"In enacting the tort 'reform' law, the legislature attempted to put itself in the seats of the Supreme Court justices, the trial judges of the state, and the jury," Peck added. "But the state constitution specifically forbids the exercise of judicial authority by the legislature. The Court's decision today ends an attempted hostile takeover of the civil justice system by those interested in avoiding responsibility for the injuries they cause to others."

The majority opinion of the Court noted: "Fairness and judicial economy, as well as the preservation of judicial independence, require this court to address this cause which is of the greatest concern to all the citizens of Ohio. By doing otherwise, this court would become a willing participant in divesting the courts of judicial power and a coconspirator in the abdication of fundamental individual rights and liberties contained in our Constitution."

The full text of the opinion may be found at http://www.lawyersweekly.com/oh/opin/sup/972419.aspx.

Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers president Mike Monteleone said, "The Court has made it clear that our constitution was meant to protect individuals as well as big business, and families as well as corporations. It means corporations cannot escape responsibility for their misconduct. This decision also means that independent juries will be able to continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis."

The Court majority observed that, enactment of this "most comprehensive and multifarious legislative measure thus far...marks the first time in modern history that the General Assembly has openly challenged this court's authority to prescribe rules governing the courts of Ohio and to render definitive interpretations of the Ohio Constitution binding upon the other branches of government."

And it was the Court's definitive interpretation that "the General Assembly may not enter upon the judicial business of settling the constitutionality of its own laws, disregard a Supreme Court decision on the subject, reenact legislation previously declared violative of the Constitution, or in any other way exercise, direct, control, or encroach upon the judicial power."

The 246-page statute was a wish list of all the tort "reform" laws anyone had ever imagined, including caps on non-economic damages, limits on joint and several liability, abrogation of the collateral source rule, certificates of merit in medical malpractice cases, etc.

Among the many millions of dollars spent by big-business interests in support of the tort "reform" legislation that would rob Ohio citizens of many of their legal rights, the three major U.S. auto makers and the insurance industry alone reported lobbying expenses in excess of $10 million.

AAJ, whose members who represent injured consumers and workers, is the largest trial bar in the world. Its Legal Affairs Department originates and participates in legal challenges and appellate briefs in order to preserve the unique constitutional and legal rights afforded American citizens under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.

In December of 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a similar state statute also challenged by AAJ's legal team.

In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in Martin v. Richey on July 8, 1999, that a two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice victims is unconstitutional as applied to the victim of undiagnosed breast cancer. The court's narrow opinion was based in part on an innovative strategy and arguments advanced by AAJ, which emphasized the Indiana constitutional guarantee of a right to a remedy.

The court found the law unconstitutional "because it requires a plaintiff to file a claim before she is able to discover the alleged malpractice and her resulting injury, and, therefore, it imposes an impossible condition on her access to the courts and pursuit of her tort remedy."