Jacobson v. Kaforey (Slip Opinion), 149 Ohio St. 3d 398

Jessica Jacobson (pro se) sued Ellen Kaforey and two hospitals alleging criminal acts (unlawful restraint, kidnapping, child enticement) and invoked R.C. 2307.60 for civil damages arising from those criminal statutes.
Trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim, reasoning Ohio courts treated civil actions based on criminal statutes as not independently created by statute.
Ninth District reversed, holding the current R.C. 2307.60 independently authorizes a civil action for injuries caused by any criminal act and remanded.
Other appellate districts (Third, Fifth, Tenth) had reached contrary conclusions, prompting certification of a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court framed the certified question: whether current R.C. 2307.60 independently authorizes a civil action for damages caused by criminal acts, unless otherwise prohibited by law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2307.60 independently creates a civil cause of action for injuries "by a criminal act"	Jacobson: statute's plain text—"Anyone injured ... by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in, a civil action"—creates an independent statutory cause of action unless excepted	Kaforey/Hospitals: statute merely codifies common law that civil claims do not merge with criminal prosecutions; it does not create new independent causes of action	Yes. The Ohio Supreme Court held R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) unambiguously creates a statutory civil cause of action for injuries caused by any criminal act, unless specifically excepted by law.

State v. Hurd, 89 Ohio St.3d 616 (statutory interpretation: first step is determining whether statute is plain and unambiguous)
Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (ambiguity defined as capable of more than one meaning; scope of R.C. 1.49 inquiry)
Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (unambiguous statute must be applied, not interpreted)
Black-Clawson Co. v. Evatt, 139 Ohio St. 100 (interpret statute in context; "four corners" principle)
Schmidt v. State Aerial Farm Statistics, Inc., 62 Ohio App.2d 48 (6th Dist.) (held former R.C. 1.16 did not create an independent cause of action)
Tomas v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 79 Ohio App.3d 624 (10th Dist.) (discussed R.C. 2307.60 in relation to civil claims like spoliation and R.C. 2307.61)
Celebrezze v. Hughes, 18 Ohio St.3d 71 (statutory language presumed to have definite purpose; avoid superfluity)