04/19/2007
CONTACT: Melissa Sharp, <(202) 314-2068
Washington, D.C.--Ohio businesses are in jeopardy of losing the protection provided by the state's statute of repose that prohibits tort claims to be filed after a 10-year time period. In a case pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, the court will determine whether or not the state's statute of repose is constitutional.
The petitioner filed an intentional tort action against his employer, General Motors Corp., and a product liability action against Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc. Because the petitioner's product liability claim is barred under Ohio's 10-year statue of repose, the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of the law.
In order to persuade the court of the consequences to Ohio businesses if the statute of repose is not upheld, the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case.
"Statutes of repose strike a balance between the interests of injured parties and the need for potential defendants to be protected from the heavy burdens that arise from unlimited liability such as lost evidence and faded memories," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "Furthermore, common-sense experience indicates that if a product has performed as intended for over a decade and harm occurs, the most likely explanation is that the product wore out, was not properly maintained, or was misused. It would be highly unusual for the harm to be the result of a product defect after many years of reliable use."
The cost of defending these claims, however, can be substantial, both in terms of money spent and time lost while employers respond to discovery, have their depositions taken, and are forced to sit though lengthy trials. This often results in small manufacturers settling even the flimsiest cases, so long as the settlement is less than the defense costs. If the Ohio Supreme Court finds the statute of repose to be unconstitutional, the number of tort cases will undoubtedly rise resulting in a considerable increase in the defense costs to businesses.
The Ohio Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the separation of powers provides logical and factual support for the inherent strengths of the legislative process. The impacts of tort law on Ohio's citizens go far beyond who should win a particular case. The General Assembly, unlike the courts, has the unique ability to weigh and balance the many competing societal, economic and policy considerations involved. Therefore the authority of the Ohio legislature to pass tort laws should be respected and maintained.
"As a matter of both legal history and sound public policy, the Ohio Supreme Court should declare the state's statute of repose to be constitutional," said Harned.
The case at issue is Groch, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al., Case No. 2006-1914, and the statute of repose is R.C. ยง 2305.10.
