Post by Logan on Dec 22, 2016 2:05:31 GMT -6
Marc G. Pera is a Cincinnati attorney and Anderson Township resident.
More than a decade ago, the state of Ohio ushered in “tort reform.” Since then, countless Ohioans have been victimized by its needless caps on damages. Because these caps only apply to non-economic damages, those individuals who are hurt the most by “tort reform” tend to be children, the elderly, stay-at-home moms (and dads), the disabled, and the unemployed. In other words, those who have been hurt the worst by negligence tend to be hurt the most by “tort reform.”
A case decided Dec. 14 by the Ohio Supreme Court demonstrates this fact. According to the ruling in Simpkins v. Grace Brethren, an entity that knowingly hires sexual predators is protected by a $350,000 cap on damages, irrespective of the harm a minor child may suffer as a result of multiple sexual assaults. Simply put, “tort reform” protects rapists.
In Simpkins, a pastor repeatedly raped a minor at the minor’s church. The church knew of previous complaints against the pastor, but still hired and continued to employ him. Given these facts, Simpkins and her father sued the church. After hearing the facts, an impartial Ohio jury held the church responsible for $3.6 million in damages. The church appealed, citing Ohio’s “tort reform” laws. The Ohio Supreme Court, after analyzing and applying Ohio’s hurtful “tort reform,” reduced the verdict from $3.6 million to $350,000.
“Tort reform” was enacted to promote “a fair, predictable system of civil justice.” What has become predictable, however, is that those who are hurt the worst can never obtain full justice. What has also become predictable is that wrongdoers can avoid taking full responsibility for harming Ohio’s most vulnerable citizens.
Read more: www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/12/20/ohio-tort-reform-helps-protect-rapists/95527218/
More than a decade ago, the state of Ohio ushered in “tort reform.” Since then, countless Ohioans have been victimized by its needless caps on damages. Because these caps only apply to non-economic damages, those individuals who are hurt the most by “tort reform” tend to be children, the elderly, stay-at-home moms (and dads), the disabled, and the unemployed. In other words, those who have been hurt the worst by negligence tend to be hurt the most by “tort reform.”
A case decided Dec. 14 by the Ohio Supreme Court demonstrates this fact. According to the ruling in Simpkins v. Grace Brethren, an entity that knowingly hires sexual predators is protected by a $350,000 cap on damages, irrespective of the harm a minor child may suffer as a result of multiple sexual assaults. Simply put, “tort reform” protects rapists.
In Simpkins, a pastor repeatedly raped a minor at the minor’s church. The church knew of previous complaints against the pastor, but still hired and continued to employ him. Given these facts, Simpkins and her father sued the church. After hearing the facts, an impartial Ohio jury held the church responsible for $3.6 million in damages. The church appealed, citing Ohio’s “tort reform” laws. The Ohio Supreme Court, after analyzing and applying Ohio’s hurtful “tort reform,” reduced the verdict from $3.6 million to $350,000.
“Tort reform” was enacted to promote “a fair, predictable system of civil justice.” What has become predictable, however, is that those who are hurt the worst can never obtain full justice. What has also become predictable is that wrongdoers can avoid taking full responsibility for harming Ohio’s most vulnerable citizens.
Read more: www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/12/20/ohio-tort-reform-helps-protect-rapists/95527218/