|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| by Richard M. Garner | | December 10, 2009 |
|
On December 10, 2009, the Tenth Appellate District issued its decision in Hanners v. Ho Wah Genting Wire & Cable SDN BHD, 10th Dist. 09AP-361, 2009-Ohio-6481 (attached in PDF format) which includes two important holdings of apparent first impression at the appellate level with respect to Ohio tort reform.
First, in a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals held that R. C. 2315.21(B) mandates bifurcation of punitive damages upon motion of any party. To the extent that the statute conflicts with Civ. R. 42, the statute controls because it protects the substantive right of a defendant to a trial on the issue non-economic damages without evidence related to punitive damages being considered at the same time.
Second, in a unanimous decision, the court of appeals held that if a trial court finds R. C. 2315.21(B) inapplicable because it conflicts with Civ. R. 42(B), then this is tantamount to declaring R. C. 2315.21(B) to be unconstitutional under Ohio’s Modern Courts Amendment, and therefore the order is immediately appealable pursuant to R. C. 2505.02(B)(6).
The appeal was successfully mounted by Richard Garner of Davis & Young in Cleveland, Ohio. The Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Garner’s position. OACTA’s brief was prepared by J.H. Huebert of Columbus, Ohio.
At this time, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will attempt an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The underlying litigation is a quadruple fire-fatality that remains pending in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and is set for trial in the Spring of 2010.
|
|
 back to current news listings | | back to home page |
|
|
|
|
|
