living, the Ohio Supreme Court has put its stamp of approval on a law
that could have devastating consequences for you if you're seriously
injured in an accident.
In a major opinion issued last month, the court showed contempt for its
past decisions, disrespect for the Ohio Constitution, and disdain for
the men and women who serve on juries.
The court, in a case called Arbino vs. Johnson & Johnson, said for
the first time in Ohio history that it's constitutional to disregard
the findings of a jury if the jury decides to award more than $250,000
to someone injured in an accident to compensate for the person's pain -
even if that pain may last a lifetime.
The court reached this landmark decision despite clear precedent that
such a law is unconstitutional. Essentially what the court says this
time around is that the Ohio General Assembly really, really, really,
really wants to limit damages for insurance companies, so who are we to
stand in their way?
Look at what the Ohio Constitution says, then you decide whether what
the court has done makes any sense. The relevant part of Article I,
Section 5 states, "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate ..."
In Ohio, the constitutional right to trial by jury has always been
interpreted to mean that judges and the government won't be able to
invade the jury's fact-finding function.
That's why jurors are there, right? To hear the facts of each
individual case and decide what they think is fair. Now, though, jurors
can spend days or weeks hearing the facts of a case, reach a difficult
decision that the injured person should be awarded a sum to compensate
for the pain an accident has caused, only to have that decision gutted
by a judge if the sum exceeds $250,000.
How does the right to a trial by jury remain inviolate if a law
requires judges to violate the decisions a jury reaches? We should
probably now read the constitution to say: The right to a jury shall be
inviolate, provided it doesn't cost an insurance company too much money.
The right to have a jury determine the facts of a case has been the
backbone of our legal system for hundreds of years. It serves as a
check against a judge who might be corrupt or for some reason
influenced by one side or the other. It's a concept as old as our
country and traces its roots to the Magna Carta. As the court's
majority notes, Thomas Jefferson viewed jury trials as "the only
anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to
the principles of its constitution."
If the court really believes those words, shouldn't there be a much
more compelling reason to upend the jury system than the desire to save
insurance companies money? In the interest of full disclosure, I am a
personal injury attorney and I work hard to help people who have been
injured in accidents get a fair shake from insurance companies. And,
yes, this decision has the potential to hurt my wallet in certain
cases. The real impact on my practice likely will be minimal because
most people aren't hurt so seriously that the cap will apply.
Regardless of my personal stake, this is simply a matter of right and
wrong, and I don't think people realize the impact of what's actually
taken place.
Everyone has heard about the infamous McDonald's scalding hot coffee
case. It's a complete oddity, but insurance company lobbyists always
trot it out as if it's the norm. The caps enacted in Ohio are far more
likely to affect the average man or woman unfortunate enough to get
into an auto accident.
Here's the nightmare situation that could happen to you or a family
member. You're driving to work when a guy driving a delivery truck
takes his mind off the road while talking on a cell phone and plows
into your car. Your head hits the window, your ankle is crushed when
your car's frame crumples, and your body is snapped back and forth like
a rag doll, and your life has been altered forever.
The head trauma leaves you plagued by headaches. Your ankle injury
means that every step causes pain to shoot through your leg. Your back
hurts so much that getting a real night's sleep is impossible. You
can't play ball with your kids anymore or even mow the yard. And the
pain doesn't go away after a week, or a month, or even a year. In fact,
by the time you get to trial years have gone by and the docs are
telling you you'll never run again and your pain will always be with
you.
A jury hears your case and awards you the cost of your medical bills
that may have to be repaid, and lost wages, and decides - after hearing
your testimony, your doctor's testimony, your spouse's testimony, the
defense doctor's testimony, and the defense attorney's arguments - that
your lifelong pain is worth $500,000. Or $1 million. Or $2 million.
Whatever it is, it's not enough to compensate you for what this
accident has done to your life and no one - no one - in that courtroom
would change positions with you for any amount of money.
That's the point where the judge steps in and reduces the jury's pain
and suffering award to $250,000 because that's what the law requires.
The jurors heard the facts and struggled to come to a fair decision,
only to have their legs cut out from them by a General Assembly that
knew nothing about the facts of your case or the impact the accident
has had on your life.
And our Supreme Court just blessed this system.
It blessed a system where a jury can hear the specifics of an
individual case only to have the decision wiped out by an arbitrary cap
the state Legislature's Republican majority came up with to satisfy
their chamber of commerce and insurance company campaign contributors.
The court justifies its decision on the thinnest of rationales. See if
you can follow its logic: When judges reduce jury awards for pain and
suffering, they aren't interfering with a jury's fact-finding function,
they're simply applying the law.
What?
Spin that around your head for a while. It never gets any clearer. So,
the jurors can do their cute little dance, and we'll pretend to care
about what they have to say. But the second they award any money to
someone that could actually make an insurance company pay fair
compensation, well something simply must be done. Apparently, the right
to trial by jury is inviolate, but only up to a point.
And there is nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion that would stop the
legislature from capping pain and suffering damages at $1 or $5. The
amount of the cap isn't the point. Caps are wrong at $1 million and
wrong at $1. Jurors are in the best position to determine what someone
deserves for the pain caused by an accident.
The caps can be lifted in extreme cases such as when someone loses a
limb or can no longer independently care for himself and perform
life-sustaining activities. But the caps apply to more common cases
like I described above, even if the person will experience a lifetime
of pain.
To their credit, Justices Terrence O'Donnell and Paul Pfeifer dissented from this badly reasoned and disheartening opinion.
I understand that the General Assembly desperately wanted to do the
bidding of the business interests that have pumped millions of dollars
into GOP campaign coffers. (Incidentally, those same interests also
have contributed millions to Republican candidates on the
all-Republican Supreme Court.)
Legislators, whether Republicans or Democrats, can get into all sorts of mischief when big money is thrown their way.
That's why we have a right to expect that the Ohio Supreme Court will
do more than justify its decisions by paying fawning deference to the
legislature.
We have a right to expect someone in Columbus to stand up for the
people of this state. And most importantly, we have a right to expect
the court to apply Ohio's Constitution and legal precedent, especially
when we're talking about something as cherished and revered as the jury
system.
No comments:
Post a Comment