2021 Ohio 845
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Amanda Brandt was sexually abused and drugged by Roy Pompa when she was 11–12 (abuse from 2004–2005); Pompa recorded multiple incidents and was criminally convicted and sentenced to life.
- Brandt sued Pompa (intentional criminal wrongdoing, dissemination of child pornography, IIED) and sought declaratory relief that R.C. 2315.18 is unconstitutional as applied.
- At trial the jury awarded $14 million (pre-April 6, 2005 noneconomic), $20 million (post-April 6, 2005 noneconomic), and $100 million punitive damages; the parties stipulated to many criminal convictions and Brandt presented expert testimony diagnosing PTSD.
- Trial court reduced the post-April 6, 2005 noneconomic award to $250,000 under R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) (statutory noneconomic-damages cap) and awarded attorney fees and costs; Brandt appealed.
- Brandt argued R.C. 2315.18 is unconstitutional as applied (violation of jury trial, open courts/remedy, due process, equal protection) and urged overruling Arbino; the Eighth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2315.18 violate the right to trial by jury as applied? | Brandt: caps nullify jury’s factual assessment of catastrophic noneconomic harms. | Pompa: caps are a legal limit applied after jury factfinding; statute is constitutional. | Court: Rejected plaintiff; Arbino/Simpkins control — caps apply as a matter of law without usurping jury factfinding. |
| Do the caps violate open courts / right to a remedy? | Brandt: reducing award to statutory cap denies a meaningful remedy. | Pompa: statute limits damages but does not wholly deny remedy; economic and other damages remain meaningful. | Court: Rejected plaintiff; following Simpkins/Arbino the remaining remedies are meaningful; costs/fees do not invalidate remedy. |
| Do the caps violate due process as applied? | Brandt: caps are arbitrary as victims of child sexual abuse mainly suffer nonphysical catastrophic harm not exempted by statute. | Pompa: caps bear a rational relation to public welfare (legislative findings about tort costs/subjectivity). | Court: Rejected plaintiff; applied rational-basis review and found evidence insufficient to show Brandt’s injuries met statutory physical-exception threshold. |
| Do the caps violate equal protection as applied? | Brandt: statute irrationally discriminates between catastrophic nonphysical injuries (often suffered by minor sexual-abuse victims) and specified catastrophic physical injuries. | Pompa: classification is rational — physical injuries listed provide more concrete evidence of noneconomic loss. | Court: Rejected plaintiff; classification rationally related to legitimate legislative purpose (Arbino/Simpkins). |
| Should Arbino be overruled / its analysis abandoned? | Brandt: Arbino was wrongly decided and unworkable; court should not follow it. | Pompa: Arbino is controlling precedent. | Court: Rejected plaintiff — as an intermediate appellate court it must follow Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Arbino). |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, 149 Ohio St.3d 307, 2016-Ohio-8118, 75 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2016) (upheld R.C. 2315.18 as-applied to a minor sexual-abuse victim and rejected similar constitutional challenges)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007) (upheld constitutionality of R.C. 2315.18 and set framework for as-applied challenges)
- Groch v. General Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192, 2008-Ohio-546, 883 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio 2008) (standard for proving as-applied unconstitutionality: clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Collier, 62 Ohio St.3d 267, 581 N.E.2d 552 (Ohio 1991) (statutes should be construed to conform with constitutions)
(Disposition: judgment affirmed; R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) damage cap applied to Brandt’s post-2005 noneconomic award; Brandt failed to prove as-applied unconstitutionality.)