Tag Archives: Ohio Supreme Court

Havel v. Villa St. Joseph – Decision to Bifurcate Trial Is Not Within Discretion of Lower Courts

by on February 17, 2012 in Appellate Group, Blog, Personal Injury

In Havel v. Villa St. Jospeh, 2012-Ohio-552, the Ohio Supreme Court this week upheld a statute passed in 2005 that requires a trial to be split into two phases — or “bifurcated” — when a party is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.  The bifurcation of a trial requires a different jury to hear each phase of the case.  The Court’s decision states that trials must be bifurcated pursuant to the statute, taking away a lower court’s discretion to decide whether bifurcation is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

Previously, pursuant to the Civil Rules of Court, judges were allowed to deny a request for bifurcation and allow a single jury to decide what amount of compensatory damages should be awarded and, at the same time, determine if the facts warranted an award of punitive damages against a defendant.  This would save the courts’ and parties’ time, money and resources.  Although rare, the finding of punitive damages in civil jury trials has remained one of the best methods of deterring egregious behavior of a party and preventing future occurrences.

By upholding the Constitutionality of the statute requiring bifurcation, the Havel decision will make it much more difficult to prove that punitive damages are warranted in cases.

Comments { 0 }

Stretching the meaning of “equipment safety guard” in Ohio’s Employment Intentional Tort Statute

by on October 24, 2011 in Blog, Business Law, Employment Law

In a decision recently issued by the Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County), Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2011-Ohio-5413, the court upheld a lower court’s decision and a jury finding under the “new” employment intentional tort statute, R.C. §2745.01.

The decision is interesting as, rather than attempting to establish a “deliberate intent” intentional tort, the Plaintiff took the tact of establishing the case by use of the third part of the statute.  Part C sets forth a “rebuttable presumption” of an employer intentional tort when an employer has removed an “equipment safety guard”.

In the case, the Plaintiff equated  the rubber gloves (for an electrician) into an “equipment safety guard” as is called for in the Statute.  The plaintiff was a second-step apprentice lineman who was electrocuted when his supervisor sent him (alone) into the bucket and told him that he “shouldn’t need no rubber gloves” when he went up to work on the lines.

The case shows the drafting problems that occur in the Ohio Legislature.  For years the Legislature has been trying to draft an employment intentional tort statute that would survive Constitutional muster and other attacks.  With R.C. §2745.01, they thought they had finally done just that – but they were likely wrong.  The Legislature failed to provide a definition of the term “equipment safety guard” – either in the history, legislative notes or otherwise.  This loophole will allow the courts to expand exactly what an “equipment safety guard” is – so as to likely eviscerate the initial two prongs of the deliberate intent statute.

Previously, the Sixth District Court of Appeals (Toledo) tried to give a limited expansion of the term, and stated – “ ‘equipment safety guard’ would be commonly understood to mean a device that is designed to shield the operator from exposure to or injury by a dangerous aspect of the machine.”  (emphasis added)  The Eighth District Court of Appeals in Hewitt thought that definition (which with “commonly understood” and “aspect” within it could mean virtually ANYTHING) was too “limited.”

So far, Courts have found that an employer not providing gloves, long sleeve shirts, or properly programmed machines, constitute evidence of a “deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard” to provide the rebuttable presumption under the statute.

Ultimately, this expansion and interpretation will get to the Ohio Supreme Court.  However, without a legislative underpinning it will be hard for that Court to jump through the necessary legal hoops to stop this court and case-law expansion of the statute.  As such, the Legislature would be wise to get their drafting pens out and start re-writing again.

 

Comments { 0 }

Ohio Supreme Court clarifies time limit in Ohio for claims against Appraisers

by on April 29, 2011 in Appellate Group, Blog, Business Law, Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law

I defend property appraisers on a regular basis. One of the issues that always arises in cases alleging negligence against an appraiser is the applicable statute of limitations and the date the injury accrued.  Until recently there has been a conflict of opinions within Ohio’s appellate districts as to when a claim for negligence accrues related to the professional negligence of a property appraiser. The Ohio Supreme Court just resolved that conflict in the case of Flagstar Bank, F.S.B v. Airline Union’s Mortgage Company, et al, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1961.

In 2008, Flagstar Bank sued an appraiser who, in 2001 and 2002, issued appraisals on three properties for a non-party bank that later sold the properties to Flagstar. These properties went into foreclosure during the recent real estate debacle currently plaguing the country. In resolving the conflict in Ohio as to when an action for professional negligence against appraisers accrues, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Flagstar that “[a] cause of action for professional negligence against a property appraiser accrues on the date that the negligent act is committed, and the four-year statute of limitations commences on that date.”

Notably, the court expressly rejected the “discovery-rule” and the “delayed damages rule.” Under these rules, a plaintiff’s action does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run, until the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have known, that he or she has been injured by the conduct of the defendant (discovery rule), or has actually incurred damages to complete the elements required to bring a cause of action for negligence (delayed damages rule). Now, under Ohio law, a professional negligence claim against an appraiser accrues, and the four-year statute of limitations commences, on the date the appraiser performs any alleged negligent appraisal work.

Comments { 0 }