The Ohio General Assembly previously enacted a statute (R.C. 2315.21) requiring that civil trials involving compensatory and punitive damages in a tort claim be bifurcated upon request of a party. This statute was enacted purportedly to decrease non-economic damages awards in tort actions. It was considered to be controversial, since it appeared to conflict with Civil Rule 42, which grants the court discretion over the issue of bifurcation. Ohio Courts of Appeals had arrived at different conclusions concerning the constitutionality of the statute. In a recent decision, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the conflicting appellate opinions. Havel v. Villa St. Joseph (2012), Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-552.
In order to determine the constitutionality of R.C. 2315.21, the Ohio Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the statute creates a substantive, enforceable right to bifurcation or whether it is a procedural matter that conflicts with Civil Rule 42. The Court concluded that the statute creates, defines, and regulates a substantive, enforceable right to separate stages of trial relating to the presentation of evidence from compensatory and punitive damages in tort actions. In so finding, the Court relied heavily on the uncodified language of Senate Bill 80, which included the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.
The Havel decision puts to rest debate over the constitutionality of R.C. 2315.21. Trial courts must continue to bifurcate civil trials involving compensatory and punitive damages upon request of a party.