Law Reviews on Lexis- The Tort Reform Legislation in the State of Ohio - Research Paper Example

For these reasons, there have been several tort reforms championed by reform proponents on various changes aimed at correcting the perceived wrongs. These changes include the burden of damage caps, changes made in the substantive tort law, judicial oversight, and time limit for filing claims, and the limitations on the attorney’s fees. This legal memo will primarily focus on a single state, the State of Ohio given that most of the tort reforms in the U.S have been focused on states simply because issues of tort have been for many years thought of as local matters.

However, at the national level, significant efforts have also been made to implement tort reforms both judicially and legislatively. We can find efforts of state tort reforms in several decisions that were largely adopted such as the influential decision in Heningsen v. Bloomfield Motors which was described as pioneering the fall of the citadel due to its attack on abrogation of the doctrine of privity and for its very broad policies. Other landmark decisions included the adoption of the strict liability tort in the case of Greenman v.

Yub Power products, inc., in the Supreme Court of California, and the Larsen v. General Motor Corp. case which recognized the crashworthiness doctrine. These decisions are the once considered to have triggered the revolution of tort reform which paid much attention on products liability 39 Akron L. Rev. 909. The General Assembly in the State of Ohio has countered certain actions of the judicial process, which are seen to have created some sort of imbalance in the law, which offers special treatment.

These include three different and unique set of cases of which two correspond to the influential decision in Larsen, Greenman, and Henningsen. In the case of Temple v. Wean United, Inc., the court assumed the strict liability in tort as articulated in section 402A of the restatement. This included the comments in that restatement, and in so doing, the court rejected contributory negligence as a way of defense. In an earlier case of Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp., the court further clarified its decision by recognizing the strict liability in warranty without privity.

In the case of Jones v. VIP Development Co. and Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., the court extended the intentional exception to workers compensation immunity tort by articulating that it only applied to where injury was certain to happen. Finally, the court adopted the seminal decision of enhanced injury or crashworthiness in the case of Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. 39 Akron L. Rev. 909, 909-911. In Ohio State a plaintiff is not barred from recovering damages, which have proximately and directly been caused by the conduct of other persons, one or more.

In the case where it is considered that the contributory fault clause of the plaintiff in question is less than that of the combined tortuous conduct of all the other parties of whom the plaintiff seek recovery of damages, his/her (the plaintiff) recovery is reduced by a sum that is proportionate to the percentage of the plaintiff’s tortuous conduct Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2315.33. A good example of tort reform include the Ohio state revised Code section 2315.19 which addresses comparative negligence statute which does not affect the strict liability in any way.

This is considered by many, a pro-injured statute which for long has been viewed by scholars as a means of ensuring greater