Articles Posted in Ohio

Jury Verdict Research published a recent study indicating that the average verdict in personal injury lawsuits in Ohio is 303,955. The median personal injury verdict in Ohio is only $13,000. Approximate three percent of Ohio personal injury verdicts exceed $1,000,000.

Recent  Settlements and Verdicts in Ohio

  • 2022, Ohio: $6,000,000 Verdict. A tree branch fell in an 85-year-old woman’s backyard during a storm. It landed on an electric line. The woman’s neighbor reported the fallen branch to the power company. Five hours later, no company representative arrived to address this issue. The woman contacted the power company. A phone representative told her to not worry and that she could go back to sleep. Several hours later, the woman woke up to a fire. She had no working smoke detector. The woman tried to escape. However, she died from smoke inhalation. The woman’s family alleged negligence against the power company. They claimed its employees failed to timely arrive and address the fallen tree branch. The Washington County jury awarded $6,000,000.

The family of an Ohio woman was awarded nearly $4 million dollars in a wrongful death suit filed against the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT).

Awful story here. On December 26, 2008, a husband and wife and their two kids were returning home after visiting with family for the Christmas holiday. Traveling in two separate vehicles, the husband and daughter arrived at home. When his wife and son did not return, he retraced his route only to find his wife’s car off the road, against a fence. A tree had fallen on the car and medics were already on the scene. While the son was taken to a local hospital, the wife was pronounced dead at the scene.

The suit filed against ODOT claimed that they knew that the bank along that stretch of road was eroding, and that trees had been uprooted in the area. The tree that had fallen on the wife’s car had been leaning over the road, creating a hazard. The suit further claimed that ODOT had breached its duty to maintain the road and attend to any potentially dangerous situations.

If you rent a home or apartment and are injured as a result of a defect in or on the premises, the Ohio Landlord Tenant Statute may allow you to recover for your injuries. This hasn’t always been the case. Previously, a landlord could escape responsibility for the defects in a dwelling.

Here’s what the statute says in plain English: A landlord is required to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition, and a landlord must comply with all building, housing, health, and safety codes. The law also requires that a landlord keep all common areas safe and sanitary as well. If your landlord violates this statute by failing to do what is required, and you can prove you were injured as a result, the landlord is automatically considered negligent.

But there’s a big catch. It is the tenant’s responsibility to make the landlord aware of the unsafe condition. The case Schroades v. Rental Homes requires proof that the landlord either (1) received notice of the defective condition of the rental premises, (2) that the landlord knew of the unsafe condition, or (3) that the tenant made reasonable, but unsuccessful, attempts to notify the landlord. If a tenant fails to make the landlord aware of the problem, the landlord may not be held responsible.

Suddenly, Ohio is the new go-to source for interesting appellate opinions. Last week, the Ninth District Ohio Court of Appeals flipped a malpractice defense verdict, finding that the trial judge provided flawed standard of care jury instructions.

Quick factual summary in this tragic case: A 5-year-old boy is diagnosed with an ear infection. Continued symptoms bring him to the emergency room, where clearly a bunch of errors occurred. I have no idea if these errors caused the boy’s death, but they were screwing things up left a right. Bad documentation for his treatment, one of the nurses gave him the wrong saline to treat his dehydration, and so forth. He was transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit at Children’s Hospital (by all accounts a good hospital). They found a boy in shock that has progressed to acidosis. The boy is intubated. Doctor orders a echocardiogram. During the echocardiogram, the boy tragically went into cardiac arrest and died. The autopsy revealed the boy died of heart failure that resulted from a pre-existing narrowing of a coronary artery and a viral infection that had spread to his heart. Awful.

The parents filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that their son’s death was caused by the negligence of the doctors. The hospital maintained that its screw-ups – some of which they admitted – did not cause the boy’s death.

Continue reading

A divided Ohio Supreme Court found last week that defective construction claims for faulty workmanship against an insured brought by a property owner are not property damage claims caused by an “occurrence” under a commercial insurance policy because they are not fortuitous. I teach insurance law and we spend a lot of time in class thin slicing fortuity and occurrence. So, I found this case of particular interest. But if the details of insurance law don’t interest you, I would stop reading now.

Plaintiff and defendant contracted for plaintiff to build a manufacturing plant. Plaintiff sued when defendant refused to pay. Defendant alleged that plaintiff’s work was defective. Insurance company, Westfield (which I don’t think is an insurance company willing to fight for its insured anyway), refused to provide the plaintiff with coverage.

The issue was a novel one in Ohio: whether defective-construction claims are covered by a commercial general liability policy. A federal district court in Ohio found that insurance covered defective construction generally, but that an exclusion applied.

Continue reading

In my insurance law class, I talk in Chapter 2 about the idea of fortunity. It is mostly a theoretical concept. Insurance is intended to provide protection against unknown events that occur in the future. So obviously, the law and common sense dictate that when you buy car insurance after a car accident, the “loss in progress” doctrine will bar coverage.

In Schwartz Manes Ruby & Slovin, L.P.A. v. Monitor Liability Managers, LLC, the 6th Circuit looked at whether or not the insured reasonably could have foreseen that a claim would be made prior to the signing of an insurance policy.

The case involved legal malpractice coverage. The law firm – an Ohio firm – clearly screwed up in defending a lawsuit. The client fired the firm. The new firm asked why the firm failed to appear at the trial, particularly since its file contained a notice for the trial. The law firm did one smart thing: they put their agent on notice who apparently told no one. Then, a new policy of legal malpractice insurance was issued.

The malpractice insurer disclaimed coverage becasue prior to its policy’s inception, the law firm knew it had a motza ball of a potential lawsuit hanging out there.

Continue reading

car accident verdict
Plaintiff sues the defendant claiming back injuries in an accident, including a herniated disc. Jury gives a defense verdict. Plaintiff appeals, claiming the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

The cases will fail almost every time. Juries will be given a lot of latitude to ignore the unconverted evidence if they don’t believe the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s lawyer, or the testifying doctor(s).  The reality is that a jury can choose to accept all the evidence, some of the evidence, or none of the evidence.

Then again, there is the idea or remitter where the jury’s verdict is far too high.  Judges using their sound judgment can reduce a jury’s verdict to whatever they want to reduce it to, and there is very little a plaintiff can do about it.  You either take what the judge gives you or you get a whole new trial.  Neither are appealing outcomes if you just hit a great jury verdict.  So why, then, is the inverse not true?  Shouldn’t a judge be able to increase the amount?  It would seem fair.  But it is not the law in Maryland, and I’ve never seen it applied anywhere.

traumatic brain injury car accidentAn Ohio man was awarded $1 million after suffering a mild traumatic brain injury in a 2006 car collision with a police cruiser. According to Plaintiff’s lawsuit, the car accident occurred when a Strongville police officer made an illegal left turn while responding to a “non-emergency” call. The plaintiff claims a traumatic brain injury.

Our lawyers handle a lot of TBI cases. Plaintiff’s TBI from the car crash presented as many of these injuries often do: pretty much no big deal. Obviously, in this case and countless other TBI car accident cases, the injury evolves from nothing to something extremely problematic.

Contact Information