Court Opinion

ID: 9870281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:53:34.25526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:05.623712
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 63} I join Justice O’Neill’s excellent dissent.
{¶ 64} “Tort reform,” however misguided and unconstitutional, was designed to protect doctors and corporate interests. See Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 163 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). Today, we learn that “tort reform,” not surprisingly, had unintended conse*324quences. It turns out that “tort reform” (and the justices who sanctioned it) also ensured that rapists and those who enable them will not have to pay in full for the damage they cause—even if they rape a child. It is past time for the General Assembly (and this court) to reconsider “tort reform” and return the authority to determine damages to juries, where it rightfully and constitutionally belongs.