Jeffrey Beausay

Archive for the ‘Product Liability’ Category:

Product Liability

Product Liability refers to serious injuries or wrongful death caused by defective and dangerous products. Product liability is a unique area of the law in that it is governed in part by statute (RC 2307.71-80) and, in many cases, the injured party need not prove that the product seller or manufacturer was negligent. In other words, if a product is unreasonably dangerous (as that phrase is defined in the statute), the seller and manufacturer can be held “strictly liable,” even if the seller/manufacturer was exercising ordinary care in the design and manufacture of the product.

Like medical malpractice cases, product liability cases are much more expensive and difficult to prosecute than straight negligence cases (such as motor vehicle accidents). Expert witnesses must be retained to 1) explain how the accident happened, 2) describe the product’s defect(s), and 3) testify as to how the accident could have been avoided with a better product design or manufacturing standard. And, as in medical malpractice cases, it is important that you retain an attorney who has experience handling product cases.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured by a dangerous or defective product, please feel free to contact me to discuss your case. There is no obligation and no fee for the initial consultation.

Jeff Beausay

Tags: Product Liability

Personal Injury Damages Caps Upheld by Ohio Supreme Court

In 2005, the Ohio General Assembly passed several “tort reform” measures, the most controversial being the limits on the amount a jury can award in personal injury and product liability cases. See RC 2315.18. Under the 2005 rules, a plaintiff cannot recover more than the greater of (1)$250,000 or (2) three times the economic damages up to a maximum of $350,000, or $500,000 per single occurrence. These limits do not apply to catastrophic injuries, defined as ”permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system,” or “permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life-sustaining activities.” These changes went into effect on April 7, 2005.

This statute was challenged on constitutional grounds. In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, the Ohio Supreme Court held that this and other tort reform provisions do not violate the Ohio Constitution.

TJB’s BS:

Let’s not overreact. These limits DO NOT apply to medical malpractice cases, wrongful death cases, or cases involving catastrophic injuries (as defined in the statute). It would be unusual for a jury to award noneconomic damages (e.g. pain and suffering) in excess of $250,000 if the injury is not catastrophic. So, in reality, this statute will not affect that many cases.

Also, bear in mind, the Ohio Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is a “strict constructionist” court, meaning that the Justices tend to uphold statutes passed by the General Assembly (Congress), unless the statute clearly violates the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, if the people of Ohio strongly disagree with these tort reform measures, they need to elect different politicians who are more “plaintiff friendly.”

The more interesting constitutional question will arise in the medical malpractice context, where the damages caps have no exception for catastrophic injuries.

Jeffrey Beausay, Trial Lawyer