Tort reform statutes evoke spirited arguments from the plaintiffs’ and defense bars. But as two state supreme court decisions from the final days of 2007 demonstrate, they also raise fundamental questions about the appropriate exercise of power by various branches of government in a constitutional democracy.
Since 1975, Ohio’s legislative and executive branches tried to effect tort reform by capping certain kinds of common law tort damages, mandating deductions of recovery from collateral sources and having judges (rather than juries) decide the amount of punitive damages. In a series of six opinions, however, the Ohio Supreme Court had consistently declared these statutes unconstitutional.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
