Noneconomic Damages Reform

Problem

The broad and basically unguided discretion given juries in awarding damages for noneconomic loss is the single greatest contributor to the inequities and inefficiencies of the tort liability system.  It is a difficult issue to address objectively because of the emotions involved in cases of serious injury and because of the financial interests of plaintiffs’ lawyers. 

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports a $250,000 limit on the award of noneconomic damages.

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against limiting noneconomic damages – that a jury’s award of noneconomic damages should not be reduced to an amount determined by legislators because a jury can determine on a case-by-case basis to what extent to compensate a plaintiff for harm suffered – fails to address the difference between noneconomic damages and economic damages, and fails to take into account the intangibility of noneconomic damages awards.  A limit on noneconomic damages limits the amount a plaintiff can recover for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other intangible injuries for which it is difficult to assign a dollar amount.  Such a limit does not affect the amount a plaintiff can recover for economic damages, which include past and future medical bills, expected lost wages, and other tangible damages.    

Noneconomic Damages Reform: AM Sub SB 80 (2004).

Ohio|2004

Limits noneconomic damages in cases involving noncatastrophic injuries to the

[…]

Limits noneconomic damages in cases involving noncatastrophic injuries to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages up to $350,000, per plaintiff, with a maximum limit of $500,000 per occurrence.  Limits applied to all cases but medical liability cases.  Specifies that juries may not consider the following when determining noneconomic damages: (1) evidence of a defendant’s alleged wrongdoing, misconduct or noneconomic guilt; (2) evidence of the defendant’s wealth or financial resources; (3) all other evidence that is offered for the purpose of punishing the defendant.  Finally, S.B. 80 specifies procedures and guidelines, based on ALEC’s Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act, for trial courts to review (upon a motion) noneconomic damages awards.


[hide]

Challenged and Upheld

The limit on noneconomic damages was upheld in  Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson et.al., 116 Ohio St. 3d 468, (2007).

Noneconomic Damages Reform: HB 350 (1996).

Ohio|1996

Limits the award of noneconomic damages to the greater of

[…]

Limits the award of noneconomic damages to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages to a maximum of $500,000, unless there is a finding that a plaintiff suffered: (1) a permanent and severe physical deformity; or (2) a permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents her from being able to independently care for herself and perform life sustaining activities.  Provides that if a plaintiff establishes the criteria set forth above, noneconomic damages are limited to the greater of $1 million or $35,000 times the number of years remaining in the plaintiff’s expected life.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

The comprehensive 1996 tort reform law violated the doctrine of separation of powers and the one-subject provision of the State Constitution.  State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999).