DWI & DUI Attorneys Help

Judgement of the Supreme Court of Ohio Removes discretion of the Board

If you are a CEO of a company or a guy who sweeps floors for a living, the Supreme Court Ohio put its stamp of approval of a law which could have devastating consequences if you are seriously injured in an accident.

In a further opinion last month, the Court has shown contempt for its previous decisions, the contempt of the Constitution of Ohio, and contempt for men and women serving in juries.

The court, in a case called Arbin against Johnson & Johnson, said that for the first time in the history of Ohio is constitutional to consider conclusions a jury if the jury decides to award more than $ 250,000 to a person injured in an accident to compensate for the pain of the person – even if this pain can last a lifetime.

The Court reached this landmark decision, despite a clear precedent that the law is unconstitutional. In essence, what the Court says that time is of the order that the General Assembly of Ohio, really, really, really, really want to limit the damage from insurance companies, then who are we stand in your way?

Look at what Ohio's Constitution says, then you decide what the Court has done makes sense. The relevant part of Article I, Section 5 provides that "The right to trial by jury is inviolate …"

In Ohio, the constitutional right to a jury trial has always been interpreted in the sense that judges and the government can not invade the jury's investigative function.

That's why juries are there, right? To listen the facts of each individual case and decide what they think is right. However, if jurors can spend days or weeks to hear the facts of a case, take a difficult decision that the injured party should be awarded the amount necessary to offset the pain of an accident has caused, alone in her decision gutted by a judge, if the sum exceeds $ 250,000.

How the right to a jury trial will remain intact if a law requires judges to violate the jury reached a decision? We should probably now read the Constitution to say: The right to a jury shall be inviolable, provided it does not cost an insurance company too money.

The right to a jury determine the facts of a case has been the thorn backbone of our legal system for hundreds of years. Serves as a check against a judge who may be damaged or for some reason the influence of either side. It is a concept as old as our country and has its roots in the Magna Carta. As noted by the majority of the Court, Thomas Jefferson viewed the jury as "the only anchor, however, never imagined by man which a government may be subject to the principles of its constitution. "

If the court truly believes these words should not be much more compelling reason to override the system jury's desire to save money on insurance? In the interest of full disclosure, I am a personal injury lawyer and work hard to help people who have been injured accident to obtain a fair share of the insurance companies. And, yes, this decision has the potential to bad my wallet, in some cases. The real impact my practice is likely to be minimal because most people are not injured as seriously as the ceiling. Despite my personal interest is simply a matter of right and wrong, and I do not think people realize the impact of what really happened.

Everyone has heard of the infamous If McDonald's hot coffee. It's a complete freak, but lobbyists insurance company always trot as if it were the norm. The maximum enacted in Ohio is much more likely to affect the man or woman in a car accident unfortunately.

This is the nightmare scenario that could happen to you or a family member. You're driving to work when a man driving a delivery truck to which the mind on the road while talking on a cell phone and plowed into his car. Your head in the window, the ankle was crushed when he crumpled under your car and your body breaks down again like a rag doll, and her life changed forever.

The head injury leaves you prey to headaches. His ankle injury means that each step causes pain to shoot through the leg. Back it hurts so much as a full night's impossible. You can not play ball with your kids or even cut the yard. And the pain does not disappear after a week or a month or a year. Of Indeed, by going to trial years have passed and documentation are you saying you never run again and the pain will always be with you.

A jury hears and awards if the cost of your medical bills that may be reimbursed, and lost wages, and decided – after hearing his testimony, his medical witness the testimony of her husband, a doctor of defense testimony and arguments of the Prosecutor of the defense – that her pain is over $ 500,000. Or a million. O 2 million. Anyway, is not enough to compensate for what this accident did to his life and nobody – nobody – in this room is to change positions with you for a fee.

This is where the judge intervenes and reduces pain by the jury's decision and suffering to $ 250,000 because that is what the law requires. The jury heard the facts and has struggled to reach a fair decision, only to have their legs cut off by a General who knew nothing of the facts of your case or the impact of the accident in his life.

And our Supreme Court has blessed this system.

He blessed a system in which a jury may hear details of a particular case, only that the decision destroyed by an arbitrary cap most Republican state legislature came up with meeting rooms and the company Trade insurance campaign contributors.

The court justified its decision on the thinnest of justifications. See if you can follow your logic: When judges to reduce the jury award for pain and suffering, are not interfering with the functions of a jury finding, they are simply enforcing the law.

What?

Spin it around his head for a while. It has never been clearer. So the jury may make a dance beautiful, and we want to care about what they have to say. But the second will be delivered the money to someone could actually provide the insurance company pay fair compensation, or something that simply must do. Apparently, the right to trial by jury is inviolate, but only to some extent.

And there is nothing in the Supreme Court believes the legislature would no longer capping pain and suffering damages at $ 1 or $ 5. The amount of the CAP is not the issue. Caps are wrong $ 1 million and $ 1 for evil. Jurors are best placed to determine what someone deserves the pain caused by an accident.

The lids can be lifted in extreme cases, like when someone loses a limb or can no longer care for himself independently and make survival activities. However, the ceilings applicable to the more common as I have described above, even if the experience of a lifetime of pain.

We must recognize that judges Terrence O'Donnell and Paul Pfeifer dissented from this view and discouraging bad motivated.

I understand that the General Assembly desperately wanted to do the bidding of corporate interests have pumped millions of dollars into the coffers of the GOP campaign. (Incidentally, those same interests have also contributed millions to Republican candidates in the whole of the Republicans Supreme Court.)

The legislators, whether Republican or Democrat, can enter all sorts of mischief, when money is thrown their way size.

That's why we have the right to expect that the Supreme Court of Ohio to do more to justify their decisions by paying servile deference to the legislature.

We right to expect someone to Columbus to defend the people of this state. Above all, we are entitled to expect the Court to apply the Ohio Constitution and case law, especially when we speak of something so beloved and revered as the jury system.

About the Author

Charles Boyk is managing partner of Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC. With over 24 years of experience, Mr. Boyk specializes in personal injury, car accidents, medical malpractice, wrongful death, ATV accidents, workers’ compensation, and dog bites. Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC is located in Toledo, OH with 6 offices in the NW Ohio area. Learn more about Mr. Boyk at www.charlesboyk-law.com or www.ohioaccidentbook.com.

Columbus Personal Injury Lawyers Lamkin, Van Eman et al.