Ohio Supreme Court- Another Decision on SB 117
Ohio Senate Bill 117, which is now law and puts sensible limitations on non-economic damages from lawsuits and gets rid of frivolous lead paint lawsuits, can be put before voters as a ballot referendum as of 8/1/07, according to today’s decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The clarification was requested by Secretary of State Brunner.
Click here to download the opinion. From what I have read of it, it is perfectly reasonable, as the law wasn’t in effect until after the Supreme Court overruled Gov. Strickland’s illegal veto- And even though Strickland’s and Brunner’s actions were improper, petitioners would have nothing to file a referendum on until after the court published it’s opinion.
And according to a source, even though a brief in opposition from Jon Husted and Bill Harris wouldn’t have mattered much, the fact that they didn’t file one is a legal faux pas.
How much do you think the trial lawyer lobby is willing to spend to get rid of this law?
Ron said,
Wrote on August 31, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Keep in mind this law only puts non-economic damage limits on consumer protection lawsuits. The media loves to claim that this will hurt the poor huddled masses of Ohio. The truth of the matter is there has only been one, yes one, consumer protection lawsuit ever in which non-economic damages have been awarded. That was the case last year when some moron was awarded $250,000 from an auto dealer because of a bad car radio.
The conservative bloggers of Ohio need to get on this bandwaggon if the trial lawyers run with the referendum. This is a good fiscal conservative bill.
Think about it this way, a consumer protection lawsuit by it’s nature is to protect consumers on purchases they’ve made. These lawsuits are not product liability cases. No one has been physically hurt by anything. Their sole purpose is to make a person financially whole after they’ve purchased a defective product.
Why would anyone ever receive non-economic damages for pain and suffering because of a product they purchased which didn’t cause an injury?
Some guy said,
Wrote on September 1, 2007 @ 11:50 am
If these damages are not that common in these cases, then that means the law is not that big a deal, and both sides are exaggerating. The plaintiff lawyers and Ted Strickland are exaggerating about how much consumers will suffer. The business lobby is exaggerating how much this law is needed to keep businesses from being drained.
Sure, the law may be right or wrong on principle, even if only one case happens every few years. But it’s not a big impact.
Ron said,
Wrote on September 2, 2007 @ 8:36 am
In response to Some Guy-
The reason this is a big deal is because it’s a new trick by the trial bar to get around the sensible caps on non-economic damages which were part of SB 80.
Trial lawyers have figured out they can use the consumer protection lawsuit to circumvent the system. This law closes that loophole.