In two recent landmark cases, Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420 (2007), and Groch v. General Motors Corp., 883 N.E.2d 377 (2008), the Ohio supreme court upheld the state legislatures latest enactment of comprehensive tort-reform, known as Senate Bill 80. Senate Bill 80’s significant reforms include: (1) limiting noncompensory and punitive damage awards; (2) changing civil practice and procedure relative to specific causes of action, such as by restricting conditions under which certain products will be considered defective; (3) implementing limitations periods on the time in which specific legal actions for personal injury based on product liability claims can be filed; and (4) creating a ten-year statute of repose for: (a) product liability claims and (b) claims for services related to improvements to real property. In this Commentary, Michael Champman of Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis explores the history of the court's rulings on tort reform and explains why, after repeatedly striking down tort reform, the court found S.B. 80 to pass constitutional muster. He writes:
On December 27, 2007, the court decided Arbino, the first challenge to S.B. 80. There, plaintiff Melisa Arbino filed a products-liability action against Johnson & Johnson alleging that she suffered blood clots and side effects from her use of an Ortho-Evra birth control patch. She challenged S.B. 80’s limits on noneconomic damages and punitive damages. The court held that such limits, in certain tort actions, do not violate the Ohio constitution’s right to a jury trial; open-courts and right-to-a-remedy; due process; or equal protection clauses.
Next, on February 21, 2008, the court decided the second challenge to S.B. 80. In Groch, plaintiff Douglas Groch was injured while operating a trim press at a General Motors’ facility. The trim press was delivered to the end-user, General Motors, more than ten years prior to Groch’s injury. Groch sought damages from the manufacturers based on alleged product defects. The manufacturers claimed immunity under S.B. 80, which had implemented a ten-year statue of repose for defective products. The court held the statute of repose for product liability actions was facially constitutional but improperly retroactive, as applied, as Groch’s claim accrued within the established two-year limitations period prior to the enactment of S.B. 80. The court also held statutes enacted in prior legislation governing subrogation interests in a workers' compensation claimant's recovery from a third party were constitutional.
. . . .
Arbino and Groch are certainly landmark decisions. The Ohio legislature was rewarded for its unwavering pertinacity in enacting S.B. 80 after years of prior rejection. Arbino and Groch should also encourage future legislative efforts as these cases establish that Ohio courts will review challenges to such legislation using a highly deferential standard. In fact, establishing such a standard meant that Arbino and Groch had to overcome stare decisis and distinguish prior decisions finding similar prior statutes unconstitutional.
(footnotes omitted)