In a February 15, 2012 decision, Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 2012-Ohio-552, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a key component of Ohio’s 2005 tort reform. Specifically, that tort reform included a requirement that trial courts bifurcate the punitive damage phase and evidence in a trial from the compensatory damage phase in a trial upon motion […]
Those involved with political subdivision claims will be interested in the Ohio Supreme Court’s new decision holding that sovereign immunity does not bar employee intentional tort claims when they arise out of the employment relationship. In Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2012 Ohio 570, defendant CMHA had plaintiff arrested in full view of his […]
In a February 15, 2012 decision, Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 2012-Ohio-552, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a key component of Ohio’s 2005 tort reform. Specifically, that tort reform included a requirement that trial courts bifurcate the punitive damage phase and evidence in a trial from the compensatory damage phase in a trial upon motion of any party. The obvious purpose of that law was to preclude the plaintiff’s attorney from inflaming the passions of the jury, with evidence that went to the issue of punitive damages, when the jury had not yet made a determination as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to compensatory damages. . . 2012 – Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Requirement that Trial Courts Bifurcate Compensatory and Punitive Damage Phases of Trials Upon Motion
Those involved with political subdivision claims will be interested in the Ohio Supreme Court’s new decision holding that sovereign immunity does not bar employee intentional tort claims when they arise out of the employment relationship. In Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2012 Ohio 570, defendant CMHA had plaintiff arrested in full view of his co-workers and local media after investigating employee use of agency credit cards for personal gasoline purchases. A grand jury indicted plaintiff for theft, but the prosecutor appeared for trial unprepared and had to dismiss the case. Plaintiff filed a union grievance and the arbitrator found that CMHA fired him without just cause and ordered reinstatement. Plaintiff ultimately resigned finding the work atmosphere intolerable. He then sued CMHA for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other claims. . . 2012 – Ohio Supreme Court Holds Sovereign Immunity Does Not Protect Political Subdivisions Against Employee Intentional Tort Claims
