Court Opinion

ID: 9815601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:13:55.977178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:05.866817
License: Public Domain

Hoffman, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 177} I concur in the majority’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis and disposition of appellants and cross-appellees’ three assignments of error. I further concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellees and cross-appellants’ cross-appeal, except for its decision to deny the Oberts a new trial because of the inconsistency between the jury’s $0 verdict on the Oberts’ claim for punitive damages and its recommendation to award the Oberts attorney fees.
{¶ 178} Although I agree that a jury does not have the right to determine the amount of attorney fees, the jury does have a right to recommend an award of them. Having been instructed that attorney fees are allowable if it awards punitive damages, I believe the trial court erred in not implementing the remedies available under Civ.R. 49(B) to resolve the inconsistency. I find the proper remedy now to be a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A).
{¶ 179} Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to overrule appellees and cross-appellants’ third assignment of error.