Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2007
From Judgepedia
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson is a 5-2 decision reached in December 2007 by the Ohio Supreme Court. The court's decision upheld several tort reform laws that the Ohio state legislature had passed in 2005 that placed caps on non-economic and punitive damage recovery.
Background
Plaintiff Melisa Arbino sued the pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson in 2006 alleging that she had sustained injuries from using a birth control patch manufactured by the company. Her lawsuit included claims that four tort reform statutes enacted by the Ohio legislature in 2005 to place caps on damages were unconstitutional.
Significance of Arbino
The Ohio Supreme Court had previously reviewed Ohio state statutes that were substantially similar to those challenged by Arbino. In the court's previous reviews, it had struck down tort reform caps passed by the legislature as unconstitutional. Arbino represents a break with the Ohio high court's tradition of striking down such laws. The majority opinion in Arbino says that the legislature's 2005 laws remedied previous defects that has caused earlier courts to strike down earlier versions of tort reform cap laws.
Positions of the justices
The 5-2 majority opinion was written by Thomas Moyer. He was joined in the majority by Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor, Judith Ann Lanzinger. Robert Cupp concurred in the majority's ruling but wrote a separate opinion.
Terrence O'Donnell and Paul Pfeifer dissented from the majority's opinion.
External links
- Text of the Arbino decision
- Ohio Supreme Court upholds civil liability reforms, in the Federalist Society's Summer 2008 State Court Docket Watch.
