Torres v. Concrete Designs, Inc.
134 N.E.3d 903
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Early-morning collision (Nov. 15, 2010) between a car driven by Jovanny Martinez and a dump truck driven by Brian English; passengers Kiara Torres and Joshua Rojas suffered severe injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued English and his employer Concrete Designs (and initially Martinez); jury found appellants solely at fault and awarded Rojas roughly $34.6 million and Torres roughly $7.8 million in compensatory damages.
- Post-trial motions: appellants sought a new trial and JNOV on multiple grounds (excessive noneconomic damages, counsel misconduct, errors on interrogatories/stipulations, and a challenge to Torres’s designation as having a “permanent and substantial physical deformity”); plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest.
- Trial court denied appellants’ motions, awarded prejudgment interest; on remand the court later held a hearing and again denied motions and granted prejudgment interest; appeal followed.
- This court: affirmed most rulings (denial of new trial, JNOV, stipulation, damages not capped for those who proved catastrophic injury) but vacated the prejudgment-interest award, finding insurer Westfield had made good-faith settlement efforts and reasonably believed it had no liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury awards of noneconomic damages were excessive or the product of passion/prejudice (motion for new trial) | Award supported by evidence of catastrophic injuries; counsel’s arguments were proper advocacy | Closing statements and certain remarks (vouching, golden-rule, attacking defense counsel, comments on defense counsel/retention) inflamed jury and warrant new trial | No abuse of discretion by trial court; most objections not timely made; remarks did not amount to gross, pervasive misconduct and did not compel new trial |
| Whether objections to counsel misconduct required sua sponte action by the court | Plaintiffs: counsel did not commit gross, abusive conduct | Defendants: counsel’s cumulative closing and opening remarks were grossly abusive and required court intervention | Court rejected defendants’ claim; counsel’s latitude and jury instructions supported result |
| Whether Torres’s $1.8M economic award was unsupported or excessive | Evidence (medical bills, neuropsychologist testimony) supported medical expenses and loss of earning capacity given age and cognitive deficits | Insufficient proof of work-life expectancy and present-value lost earnings; verdict speculative | Court found sufficient competent evidence (medical testimony re: permanent impairment) and jury could award future economic damages; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether JNOV should be granted that Torres did not sustain a "permanent and substantial physical deformity" (to lift statutory $350,000 cap) | Plaintiffs: evidence (skull fracture, surgeries, blindness in one eye, scarring, neuro deficits) supported catastrophic/deforming injury | Defendants: scars healed and were not severe enough to qualify; law requires severe/objective disfigurement | De novo review: sufficient evidence for jury to decide; jury (and stipulation as to Rojas) supported finding that Torres (and Rojas) had permanent and substantial physical deformities |
| Whether defendants stipulated (or waived) interrogatory re: Rojas’s permanent and substantial deformity | Plaintiffs: parties and court treated the issue as stipulated for Rojas | Defendants: never accepted stipulation; should have been submitted to jury | Court concluded defense counsel did orally assent on record; failure to object forfeited error; stipulation binding |
| Whether trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest (R.C. 1343.03) against Westfield | Plaintiffs: insurer failed to make good-faith settlement efforts and rational evaluation; award justified | Westfield: conducted investigation, relied on police report, reconstruction, arbitration finding Martinez 100% liable, and reasonably believed no liability; made settlement offers within policy and high-low offers | Court found Westfield had a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief of no liability and had made settlement offers; trial court abused discretion in awarding prejudgment interest; prejudgment interest vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Pesek v. Univ. Neurologists Assn., 87 Ohio St.3d 495 (Ohio 1999) (trial court obligation to correct grossly abusive counsel conduct)
- Snyder v. Stanford, 15 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1968) (standard on prosecutorial/counsel misconduct and need for timely objection)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (requirements for awarding prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (Ohio 2007) (statutory cap on noneconomic damages lifted only for catastrophic injuries)