Tort Law Journal

An interesting article has been posted analyzing the results of tort reform. Oftentimes, proponents of tort reform point to rising insurance costs as a need to institute reform in the court system. There are many, many anecdotal stories about doctors having to leave the practic of medicine due to insurance costs which are, allegedly, the result of claims paid

But is this actually the case?

In Georgia, the answer appears to be no. Insurance costs continue to climb after tort reform was put in place.

Read the article

Contact the Author: Christopher M. Ernst

In April 2005, new legislation in Ohio went into effect dramatically overhauled the tort landscape in Ohio. The Tort Reform Act of 2004 represented the latest attempt by the Ohio legislature to reign in the alleged abuses of tort law, control run away juries and otherwise impart a sense of rationality to Ohio courts. Or so the legislature told us ….

The Ohio Supreme Court has bounced several prior attempts at reform, deeming them to be unconstitutional for one reason or another. Recent observers, though, felt that this attempt would survive review, in part due to the change composition in the Court (more conservative and Republican than prior versoins of the Court).

It will be seen whether these observers are correct or not.

On August 23rd, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to review the statute on three different bases:

1. Non-economic damages
2. Punitive damages
3. Collateral source evidence

The Court declined to examine the constitutionality of post-judgment review position that is contained in Ohio Revised Code 2315.19.

Contact the Author: Christopher M. Ernst