Statutory caps and how courts apply them
In tort actions, R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) generally limits damages for noneconomic loss to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic loss, up to $350,000 per plaintiff or $500,000 per occurrence. Division (B)(3) removes the limit for permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system, and for permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life-sustaining activities. R.C. 2315.21 generally bars judgment for punitive damages exceeding two times the compensatory damages awarded against that defendant. In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, the Supreme Court of Ohio held both statutes constitutional on their face. 2007-Ohio-6948, ¶ 80, 111. The court reasoned that judges "must simply apply the limits as a matter of law to the facts found by the jury; they do not alter the findings of facts themselves." Id. at ¶ 40.
The mechanics matter on appeal. R.C. 2315.18(D) requires the jury to return interrogatories separating economic from noneconomic loss, and division (E)(1) directs that the cap be applied only after the jury has made its findings. Defective interrogatories can leave the appellate court unable to tell what the jury found.
As-applied challenges require a factual record
Arbino resolved facial challenges, not every application. In Brandt v. Pompa, a divided court held "R.C. 2315.18 is unconstitutional as applied to Brandt and similarly situated plaintiffs," child victims of intentional criminal conduct who sue the persons found guilty of those acts and have suffered permanent and severe psychological injuries. 2022-Ohio-4525, ¶ 46. The court stressed that the challenger "bears the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts" that make the statute unconstitutional as applied. Id. at ¶ 27. An as-applied challenge is therefore won or lost on the trial record. Raise it in the trial court and put on the evidence that supports it.
Prejudgment interest and its effect on timing
In tort cases not settled by agreement, R.C. 1343.03(C)(1) awards prejudgment interest if, on motion and after a hearing held after the verdict, the court finds that the paying party failed to make a good faith effort to settle and the receiving party did not. Interest is not awarded on future damages. R.C. 1343.03(C)(2). Because a timely motion for prejudgment interest is among the filings listed in App.R. 4(B)(2), it restarts the time to appeal from the order resolving it. See final appealable orders.
Remittitur, new trial, and staying the judgment
A court that finds an award excessive on the facts found by the jury may order a remittitur, which requires the plaintiff's consent. Arbino, 2007-Ohio-6948 at ¶ 38. A verdict against the weight of the evidence on damages can be challenged by a Civ.R. 59 motion or on appeal, subject to the unanimity rule for jury verdicts. See standards of review. Finally, an appeal does not by itself stay execution: subject to exceptions in other statutes and the court rules, R.C. 2505.09 generally conditions a stay on a supersedeas bond in an amount not less than the judgment and interest, capped at fifty million dollars excluding interest and costs. Confirm which stay procedure and exceptions apply before relying on it.
Recent analysis
New analysis on this topic is added as the Ohio courts decide cases. Meanwhile, see all opinion analysis.
Published for Ohio attorneys; not legal advice. Rules and statutes change, so confirm current text before relying on it.