2022 Ohio 4525
Ohio2022Background
- Plaintiff Amanda Brandt was sexually abused by Roy Pompa when she was 11–12; Pompa was criminally convicted on numerous counts involving Brandt and others.
- Brandt sued Pompa for intentional torts and emotional distress; the trial court found liability uncontested and held a damages-only jury trial.
- Jury awarded $14 million for pre-2005 abuse (before R.C. 2315.18 took effect), $20 million for post-2005 noneconomic loss, and $100 million punitive damages.
- The trial court reduced the $20 million post-2005 noneconomic award to $250,000 under R.C. 2315.18(B)(2); Brandt appealed, arguing an as-applied constitutional violation.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held R.C. 2315.18 unconstitutional as applied to Brandt and similarly situated plaintiffs (child victims of intentional criminal sexual abuse with permanent, severe psychological injuries) because the statute arbitrarily excludes such psychological injuries from the uncapped exceptions and reinstated the jury’s verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) cap on noneconomic damages violates Article I, §16 (due course of law) as applied to Brandt | The cap is arbitrary/unreasonable when applied to child victims of intentional sexual crimes who suffer permanent, severe psychological injury because the statute’s uncapped exceptions cover only physical catastrophic injuries | The cap is rationally related to legitimate public welfare interests (tort reform, predictability, curb frivolous/inflated awards); Arbino upheld statute on its face | Court: As-applied holding for Brandt — statute is unconstitutional under Article I, §16 to the extent it fails to exempt plaintiffs with permanent, severe psychological injuries who are child victims of intentional criminal conduct; jury verdict reinstated |
| Whether the existence of a large overall judgment (economic + punitive) or collectability affects the constitutional analysis | Irrelevant; constitutionality of statute stands regardless of whether plaintiff recovers other damages or punitive awards | Caps still constitutional because statute’s goals and exceptions apply regardless of other awards; existence of other recoverable amounts does not cure statutory deprivation | Court: Recoverability and punitive award size are irrelevant to the as-applied due-course-of-law evaluation |
| Whether the statutory cap infringes the right to jury trial (Article I, §5) | Jury’s factfinding is nullified if court reduces jury’s noneconomic award by statute; effective deprivation of jury’s role | Legislature may change remedies; trial court applies cap as a matter of law after jury factfinding; Arbino supports that procedure | Court: Majority decided on due-course-of-law grounds and did not rely on a jury-trial holding; remedy caps may be reviewed but here due-process failure sufficed (dissent defended constitutionality under jury-trial precedents) |
| Whether Arbino and related precedent foreclose Brandt’s as-applied challenge | Arbino was a facial validation but did not consider severe psychological injuries; as-applied claim can succeed where Arbino’s rationales fail | Arbino controls and gives strong deference to legislative line-drawing; Simpkins and Arbino support constitutionality | Court: Arbino’s rationale is undermined when applied to plaintiffs like Brandt (permanent severe psychological injury excluded from exceptions); Arbino does not preclude an as-applied holding here |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007) (upheld R.C. 2315.18 on its face; relied on rational-basis review and legislative findings supporting caps)
- Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 75 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio 2016) (plurality addressing as-applied challenges to R.C. 2315.18 in a child-sex-abuse context)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio 2008) (standard for as-applied challenges and burden of proof; presumption of constitutionality)
- Harrold v. Collier, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio 2005) (discusses standards for facial vs. as-applied constitutional challenges)
- Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986) (articulates rational-basis test under Ohio’s due-course-of-law guarantee)
- Benjamin v. Columbus, 146 N.E.2d 854 (Ohio 1957) (formulation that statutes are valid if they bear a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and are not arbitrary)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 635 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio 1994) (explains punitive damages purpose separate from compensation)