Case Title: Depew v. Ogella

Citation: 1994-Ohio-244

Docket Number: 19940742

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-07-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
[Cite as Depew v. Ogella (1994),     Ohio St.3d    .]                            
Torts -- Damages -- Collateral benefits -- R.C. 2317.45                          
     violates Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio                        
     Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto.                              
     (No. 94-742 -- Submitted June 15, 1994 -- Decided July 27,                  
1994.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Medina County, No.                     
2220-M.                                                                          
                                                                                 
     Laybourne, Smith, Gore & Goldsmith, A. Russell Smith,                       
Robert B. Laybourne and Joy S. Wagner, for appellants.                           
     Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs Co., L.P.A.,  and David                   
W. Hilkert, for appellee.                                                        
                                                                                 
     The motion to certify the record is allowed, the judgment                   
on appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial                    
court on authority of Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d                  
415,     N.E.2d    .                                                             
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer,                   
JJ., concur.                                                                     
     Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.                                            
     Wright, J., dissents.                                                       
     Moyer, C.J., concurring separately.  I concur separately                    
in the judgment entry in the above-styled case.  As my dissent                   
in Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415,                                
N.E.2d     , stated, I do not agree with the law announced in                    
the majority decision.  Nevertheless, it is the law on the                       
issue in the above-styled case.  As I believe all parties                        
should receive equal application of the law announced by this                    
court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.