The Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth Appellate District has ruled that a provision of Ohio’s most recent tort reform statute trumps the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and requires separate proceedings for punitive damages claims when requested by a party. 

The Court announced its approval of the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code § 2315.21(B) on December 10, 2009, in Hanners v. Ho Wah Genting Wire & Cable SDN BHD, 2009-Ohio-6481.  The case involved a wrongful death product liability claim in which the defendants filed a motion, before trial, to bifurcate the punitive damages phase of trial.  Defendants based their motion on Section 2315.21(B), which mandates separate proceedings – when requested by any party – for the issues of whether a plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages and whether a plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.  The trial court, however, denied the request, finding that bifurcation of those issues was not mandatory because Section 2315.21(B) conflicts with Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 42(B), which leaves the decision to bifurcate a claim to the discretion of the trial court.  

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.  It ruled that the right to bifurcation of punitive damages claims was a substantive right granted by the Ohio General Assembly, and that right did not unconstitutionally conflict with Rule 42(B), a procedural rule set by the Supreme Court of Ohio.  The Court cited several portions of the General Assembly’s statement of findings and intent in enacting the recent tort reform legislation, including a legislative intent to “[r]eform . . . punitive damages law in Ohio and . . . to restore balance, failure and predictability to the civil justice system.”  The Court also noted that the General Assembly was explicit in expressing its belief that juries’ consideration of fault in awarding compensatory damages improperly inflates those damage awards, and therefore enacted the bifurcation provision in Section 2315.21(B) “to ensure that evidence of misconduct is not inappropriately considered by the jury in its determination of liability and compensatory damages.”

In light of the General Assembly’s specifically-expressed intent to create a substantive right to bifurcation, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had improperly denied the defendants’ request to bifurcate the punitive proceedings.  A copy of the Hanners opinion can be found here .

For further information regarding the Hanners opinion or Frantz Ward’s products liability practice, contact Chris Koehler here or any of the attorneys in our Product Liability Practice Group, listed here .
                                                                                     

_{This document is intended to provide general information about legal developments, not legal advice.}

_{Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.}