Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-1914.,2006-1914. |
| Citation | 2008 Ohio 546,117 Ohio St.3d 192,883 N.E.2d 377 |
| Parties | GROCH et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
1. R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931 do not violate the Takings Clause (Section 19, Article I), the Due Process and Remedies Clauses (Section 16, Article I), or the Equal Protection Clause (Section 2, Article I) of the Ohio Constitution, and are therefore facially constitutional.
2. R.C. 2305.10(C) and former 2305.10(F) do not violate the open-courts provision (Section 16, Article I), the Takings Clause (Section 19, Article I), the Due Process and Remedies Clauses (Section 16, Article I), the Equal Protection Clause (Section 2, Article I), or the one-subject rule (Section 15(D), Article II) of the Ohio Constitution, and are therefore facially constitutional.
3. To the extent that former R.C. 2305.10(F) (now (G)) affects an accrued substantive right by providing an unreasonably short period of time in which to file suit for certain plaintiffs whose injuries occurred before the amendments to R.C. 2305.10 enacted by 2004 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 80 became effective, and whose causes of action therefore accrued for purposes of R.C. 2305.10(C), former R.C. 2305.10(F) is unconstitutionally retroactive under Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.
Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer Co., L.P.A., Kevin J. Boissoneault, Theodore A. Bowman, and Russell Gerney, Toledo, for petitioners.
Kerger & Associates and Kimberly Conklin, Toledo; Lathrop & Gage L.C. and Patrick N. Fanning, Kansas City, MO, for respondent General Motors Corporation.
Gallagher Sharp, Robert H. Eddy, and Colleen A. Mountcastle, Cleveland, for respondents Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc.
Marc Dann, Attorney General, Elise W. Porter, Acting State Solicitor, and Stephen P. Carney, Deputy State Solicitor, for respondent state of Ohio.
Paul W. Flowers, Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers, Cleveland, in support of petitioners for amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy, and Marc J. Jaffy, Columbus, in support of petitioners for amicus curiae Ohio AFL-CIO.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Steven M. Loewengart, and Johnathan E. Sullivan, Columbus, in support of respondents for amicus curiae COSE Group Services, Inc.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Victor E. Schwartz, and Mark A. Behrens, Washington, DC, in support of respondents for. amici curiae National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, American Chemistry Council, National Society of Professional Engineers, NPES Association for Suppliers Of Printing, Publishing and Converting Technologies, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Kurtis A. Tunnell, and Anne Marie Sferra, Columbus, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice.
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Carolyn A. Taggart, Cincinnati, and J.H. Huebert, Columbus, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.
Garvin & Hickey, L.L.C., Columbus, Preston J. Garvin, and Michael J. Hickey, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Thomas R. Sant, Columbus, in support of respondents for amici curiae Ohio Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business and Ohio Manufacturers Association.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, Columbus, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Ohio Self-Insurers Association.
{¶ 1} This case comes to us as certified questions of state law from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified questions by holding that R.C. 4123.93, 4123.931, 2305.10(C), and former 2305.10(F) (now (G)) are all facially constitutional on the challenges to those statutes asserted in this case. However, we determine that Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution () prevents R.C. 2305.10(C) and former 2305.10(F) from applying to the specific facts of this case. We therefore uphold an "as applied" challenge to those statutes and invalidate former R.C. 2305.10(F) in part.
{¶ 2} The federal district court's initial certification order reads as follows:
{¶ 3} "There are issues of Ohio law that may be determinative of the present case and for which there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to certify questions of Ohio law to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
"A. NAME OF THE CASE AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES
{¶ 4} "The name of this case is Douglas Groch, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al. case number 3:06-CV-1604. The parties in this case are: Plaintiffs Douglas Groch and Chloe Groch versus Defendants General Motors Corporation, Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc. The Attorney General of Ohio is a party for purposes of defending the constitutionality of the Ohio statutes at issue.
"B. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
{¶ 5} "The Amended Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff Douglas Groch (`Groch') was injured on March 3, 2005 when the trim press he was operating came down on his right arm and wrist. At the time of his injury Plaintiff Douglas Groch was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant General Motors Corporation. The trim press that he was using was manufactured by Defendants Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc.
{¶ 6} "Groch brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio seeking damages from Defendant General Motors Corporation (`GM') based on a theory of employer intentional tort and from Defendants Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc. (respectively, `Kard' and `Racine') based on a theory of product liability. Plaintiff Chloe Groch (`Chloe') sought damages for loss of consortium.
{¶ 7} "The action was removed to federal court by GM. Federal jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1332 because there is diversity between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
{¶ 8} "GM has asserted a subrogation interest in Groch's recovery for its payment to him of workers' compensation benefits. Groch asserts that the Ohio statutes granting GM subrogation interests—R.C. 4123.93 and R.C. 4123.931-are unconstitutional. To fully adjudicate this matter and determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the statutes under the Ohio Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio has not yet had opportunity to issue a decision on the constitutionality of R.C. 4123.93 and R.C. 4123.931, passed as Senate Bill 227 and made effective in April 2003. Therefore, this Court certifies questions 1 through 3 to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
{¶ 9}
{¶ 10} Shortly after issuing that order, the district court issued an amended order that certified an additional ninth question regarding the constitutionality of 2004 Am. Sub.S.B. No. 80.
{¶ 11} This court reviewed the parties' preliminary memoranda and determined that it would answer all nine certified questions, numbering them as follows:
{¶ 12} "1. Do the statutes allowing subrogation for workers' compensation benefits, R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931, violate the takings clause, Article I, Section 19, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 13} "2. Do R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931 violate the due process and remedies clause, Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 14} "3. Do R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931 violate the equal protection clause, Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 15} "4. Do R.C 2305.10(C) and (F) violate the open courts provision of Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 16} "5. Do R.C. 2305.10(C) and (F) violate the takings clause, Article I, Section 19, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 17} "6. Do R.C. 2305.10(C) and (F) violate the due process and remedies clause, Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 18} "7. Do R.C. 2305.10(C) and (F) violate the equal protection clause, Article I, Section 2, of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 19} "8. Do R.C. 2305.10(C) and (F) violate the ban on retroactive laws, Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?
{¶ 20} 112 Ohio St.3d 1416, 2006-Ohio-6712, 859 N.E.2d 556.
{¶ 21} Plaintiffs Douglas and Chloe Groch are the petitioners in this matter. The respondents are defendants General Motors Corporation, Kard Corporation, and Racine Federated, Inc., and the state of Ohio, represented by the attorney general. A number of amicus curiae briefs ably support their arguments.
{¶ 22} The first three questions focus on whether the General Assembly's statutory response...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Executone of Columbus, Inc. v. Inter-Tel, Inc.
... ... Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); ... a substantive right for purposes of Section 28, Article II." Groch v. General Motors Corporation, 117 Ohio St.3d 192, 225, 883 N.E.2d 377 ... ...
- Gabbard v. Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
- State v. Delvallie
- In re J.M.P.
-
Asbestos for the rest of us: the continued viability of statutes of repose in product liability.
...Co., 639 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1994). (105) Id. at 429-31. (106) Novak, supra note 102, at 40. (107) Id. See also Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp, 883 N.E.2d 377, 404-411 (Ohio 2008) (holding Ohio product liability statute of repose facially constitutional but unconstitutionally retroactive with respe......