Source: https://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/personal_injury/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:23:41+00:00

Document:
Newsnet5 reports that Local Greater Cleveland RTA police officers will soon be carrying tasers with cameras and microphones. Each of RTA's 13 police vehicles will be equipped with the new weapons, which can record black and white video for up to 2 hours. RTA's innovative use of these unique cameras in unprecedented locally, but RTA hopes it will help with crime on public transportation.
These issues are before the Ohio Supreme Court upon certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case is Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, Case no. 2006- 1212. Melisa Arbino filed a product liability action against Johnson & Johnson, claiming she developed medical problems after using the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch. The Ohio Supreme Court briefs can be viewed via the following link: Ohio Supreme Court Online Docket.
Source: Does 2004 Tort Reform Legislation Violate Plaintiffs’ Right To Have Juries Decide Damage Awards?, Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Previews, May 2, 2007.
Attorney General Marc Dann filed suit against lead paint manufacturers, similar to the suits already filed by cities such as Toledo and East Cleveland. See our prior post: East Cleveland Suing Lead Paint Manufacturers. These suits aim to declare lead paint a public nuisance, and require manufacturers to remove lead paint from homes and other buildings. The Attorney General's suit covers all areas of Ohio that have not previously filed a lead paint suit, and may eventually encompass the cities that have already filed suit. See State Files Suit vs. Paint Makers by Peter Krouse and Olivera Perkins, The Plain Dealer, Apr. 4, 2007; Ohio Lawsuit Targets Paint Industry , Toledo Blade, Apr. 4, 2007.
The case is Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams, Franklin County Common Pleas Case No. 07-CV-004587. The docket can be accessed at the Franklin County Recorder's web page.
The AG asserts that his suit is not affected by Am. Sub. SB 117, because the suit was filed before SB 117's effective date. SB 117 prohibits nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers. The status of SB 117 is uncertain, because while Taft allowed the bill to go into law without his signature, incoming governor Strickland vetoed the bill. See our prior posts: Republican Legislators Sue to Overturn Strickland Veto and Incoming Governor Vetoes CSPA Limits. However, the paint companies will argue that SB 117 was merely a clarification of prior statutes, and the prior statutes demonstrate an intent to disallow nuisance suits against manufacturers.
Fehrenbach v. O'Malley, 2007-Ohio-971: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for parents to file a loss of consortium claim for injury caused to their child by medical malpractice begins running when the child reaches the age of 18. The statute of limitations is one year, so the parent has until the child reached age 19 to file a complaint. Prior to this decision, the parent had to file their claims within one year of discovery of the injury or termination of the physician/patient relationship, while the child could file their claims up to one year after their eighteenth birthday. Time Limit for Parents To Bring Own Claim Based on Child’s Injury Does Not Run Until Child Reaches 18, Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries, Mar. 21, 2007. Malpractice Limit Overturned by Sharon Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, Mar. 22, 2007.
In what plaintiff's lawyers believe is one of the first lawsuits of its kind, plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a contrast agent injected for an MRI. He alleges that the drug, Optimark, caused him to develop nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Optimark and similar contrast agents contain the metal gadolinium. The FDA is currently investigating the link between gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with kidney problems. The plaintiff suffers from Wegener's disease, which causes kidney inflammation. The case is Walker v. Tyco Healthcare Group, Federal Northern District of Ohio Case No. 1:07-cv-00741. Patient suing Drug Maker by Mike Tobin, The Plain Dealer, Mar. 19, 2007.
Hicks v. Allen , 2007-Ohio-693: The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, which held that sovereign immunity applied to a sheriff's deputy who kept a police dog at his home. The dog knocked down an elderly neighbor when the deputy was getting ready to leave for work. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the deputy was acting outside the scope of his employment. Additionally, sovereign immunity does not apply because ORC 955.28 imposes liability upon the owner, keeper or harborer of a dog.
The political subdivision was immune under ORC 2744.03(A)(3), which creates immunity when injury results from an employee's exercise of discretion with respect to policy making, planning or enforcement powers. ORC 955.28 does not expressly impose liability upon a political subdivision.
The concurring and dissenting opinion of Judge O'Neill states that there was also a genuine issue of material facts as to whether the deputy acted recklessly. If the deputy acted recklessly, this would deprive him of an immunity defense. O'Neill disagreed with the majority's finding that the employee was engaged in a discretionary policy making function.
The concurring and dissenting opinion of Judge Grendell states that the uncontroverted evidence shows that the deputy was acting within the scope of his employment. Additionally, case law has held that ORC 955.28 does not impose liability upon political subdivisions who harbor dogs. Thus, ORC 955.28 can not impose liability on political subdivision employees either.
See Police Dog Handler can be Liable by Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer, Mar. 7, 2007.
Attorney General Marc Dann, representing Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, moved to dismiss the action against her, filed by republican legislators seeking to overturn Governor Strickland's controversial veto of Am. Sub. SB 117. Dann asserts that the republican legislators and the General Assembly lack standing to file the mandamus action. The 126th General Assembly no longer exists and the legislators did not personally suffer any injury. Dann also argues that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy. See Secretary of State's Motion to Dismiss. See our prior posts: 1945 OAG Opinion Gives Insight into Strickland Veto Dilemma and Republican Legislators Sue to Overturn Strickland Veto.
Source: Dann Files Motion to Dismiss Veto Lawsuit, The Hannah Report, Feb. 28, 2007.
In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (Feb. 20, 2007), Case No. 05-1256 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the damages awarded to a smoker's widow in her lawsuit against cigarette maker Philip Morris. The compensatory damages in the case were $600,000 and the punitive damages were 97 times the compensatory, ie. $79.5 million. The Supreme Court did not hold that the amount of punitive damages was unconstitutionally large, but reversed because jurors were urged to punish the defendants for injury to all the smokers in the state. Punishing a defendant for injury to those not before the court amounted to taking of property without due process. Supreme Court Tosses Award in Smoking Case by Mark Sherman, Associated Press, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 21, 2007; Supreme Court Limits Punitive Awards, Backs Altria by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News, Feb. 20, 2007; Court Limits Punitive Damages by Lyle Deniston, SCOTUS Blog, Feb. 20, 2007.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.