For years, Ohio personal injury law has operated under strict statutory limits regarding how much a plaintiff can recover for pain and suffering. These limits, known as damages caps, were designed to prevent what legislators termed "runaway jury verdicts." However, a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Brandt v. Pompa has fundamentally shifted the landscape for survivors of severe trauma. This ruling challenges the absolute authority of these caps, specifically in cases involving intentional criminal acts.
The decision represents a significant victory for victims’ rights in Ohio. It establishes that arbitrary statutory limits cannot always override the findings of a jury, particularly when the plaintiff has suffered profound psychological injury due to a criminal offense. For anyone navigating the complexities of a civil lawsuit, knowing how this ruling impacts potential compensation is essential.
The Basics of Ohio Personal Injury Law and Damages
To appreciate the weight of the Brandt v. Pompa decision, it is necessary to look at how compensation works within the state's legal framework. In Ohio civil litigation, damages generally fall into two categories: economic and non-economic.
Economic damages are quantifiable. They include medical bills, lost wages, and property damage. There is typically no limit on these because they represent direct financial losses. Non-economic damages in Ohio, however, cover intangible losses. This category includes pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, and psychological trauma.
The Role of the Ohio Non-economic Damages Cap
Under Ohio Revised Code 2315.18, the state legislature imposed a ceiling on non-economic awards. Generally, this cap limits recovery to the greater of $250,000 or three times the economic damages, up to a hard maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff or $500,000 per occurrence.
Exceptions exist for "catastrophic injuries," such as permanent physical deformity or the loss of a limb or bodily organ system. In those specific catastrophic scenarios, the cap does not apply. However, for years, severe psychological trauma—no matter how debilitating—was rarely classified as "catastrophic" under the strict definitions of the statute. This left many victims of sexual assault and other violent crimes with limited recourse for their pain and suffering damages in Ohio, even when a jury believed they deserved more.
What Happened in Brandt v. Pompa?
The case that changed the conversation involved a plaintiff, referred to as Brandt, who was a victim of sexual assault by the defendant, Pompa. Pompa was criminally convicted for his actions. Brandt subsequently filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages for the immense psychological and emotional harm she endured.
The jury in the trial court recognized the severity of Brandt’s suffering. They awarded her a substantial sum for non-economic damages that far exceeded the statutory limits. However, the trial judge, adhering to the existing Ohio non-economic damages cap, reduced the jury’s award to match the legal limit.
Brandt appealed, arguing that the cap was unconstitutional as applied to her specific situation. She contended that because her injuries resulted from an intentional criminal act, applying a legislative cap violated her rights under the Ohio Constitution to a trial by jury and a remedy in due course of law. The case eventually reached the state’s highest court.
Ohio Supreme Court Non-Economic Damages Decision Explained
In December 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision. The court ruled in favor of Brandt, finding that the statutory cap on non-economic damages was unconstitutional as applied to her case.
The court’s reasoning focused on the nature of the injury and the rights of the victim. They determined that when a plaintiff suffers injuries due to a criminal act where the offender has been convicted, the legislature’s attempt to arbitrarily limit compensation interferes with the jury’s fact-finding role. The jury had assessed the evidence and determined the value of the emotional distress damages in Ohio necessary to make the victim whole. By automatically reducing that amount, the statute violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
This case was not a facial challenge, meaning the court did not strike down the damages cap for all cases. Instead, it was an as-applied constitutional challenge. The ruling specifically targets scenarios where the rigid application of the cap denies justice to a victim of a crime, effectively expanding the potential for recovering non-economic damages in these specific contexts.
How Brandt v. Pompa Affects Future Injury Lawsuits
The implications of this ruling are extensive for Ohio personal injury law. It signals a judicial willingness to prioritize the jury's assessment of harm over legislative caps in cases involving egregious conduct.
Broader Scope for Victims of Crimes
The most direct impact is on damages from injury lawsuits in Ohio involving criminal acts. Victims of assault, sexual abuse, and other intentional torts where the defendant is convicted may no longer be bound by the $350,000 limit. This allows survivors to seek full compensation for the life-altering trauma they have experienced without fear that a judge will automatically slash the verdict.
Reevaluating Psychological Injury Compensation
Historically, Ohio courts distinguished sharply between physical and psychological "catastrophic" injuries. Physical loss of a limb lifted the cap; severe PTSD did not. The Brandt decision helps bridge this gap. While it does not redefine "catastrophic injury" in the statute, it provides a constitutional bypass for the cap in cases of criminal victimization. The court acknowledges that psychological injury compensation is just as vital as compensation for physical scars.
When the Non-Economic Damages Cap Does Not Apply in Ohio
Following this ruling, there are now two primary avenues where the standard caps on pain and suffering may be lifted or bypassed.
- Catastrophic Physical Injury: As defined by statute, this includes permanent physical deformity or loss of use of a limb or organ system. In these cases, the cap is lifted automatically based on the nature of the injury.
- Constitutional Exceptions for Criminal Acts: Based on Brandt v. Pompa, if the injury resulted from a crime and the cap’s application would violate the victim’s constitutional rights to a remedy, the cap may be set aside.
This creates a more nuanced legal environment. It forces defense attorneys and insurance companies to reevaluate their risk assessments. They can no longer rely on the non-economic damages limit in Ohio as a guaranteed safety net in cases involving criminal behavior.
Recovering Non-Economic Damages for Trauma and Emotional Distress
Calculating damages for intangible losses is difficult. Unlike a medical bill, there is no invoice for years of nightmares, anxiety, or the loss of enjoyment of life. This is why the jury’s role is vital.
Valuing Pain and Suffering
In Ohio trauma injury claims, attorneys use various methods to demonstrate the extent of non-monetary loss. They may present testimony from mental health professionals, family members, and the victims themselves to paint a picture of how the injury has diminished the plaintiff’s quality of life.
The Brandt ruling empowers juries to place a true value on this suffering. If a jury determines that a victim’s emotional distress is worth $2 million, and the facts align with the Brandt precedent, that verdict is now more likely to stand. This shift places a higher premium on compensation for severe emotional harm.
Does Ohio Limit Emotional Distress Compensation?
Technically, the statute still exists. For standard negligence cases—such as a routine slip and fall or a minor car accident without criminal elements—the cap on pain and suffering in Ohio likely still applies. The Brandt decision did not erase the law; it merely carved out a massive exception for victims of criminal acts. Therefore, the answer depends heavily on the specific facts of the case and the conduct of the defendant.
Challenges in Ohio Tort Reform and Damages Cap Challenges
The tension between advocates of tort reform in Ohio and victims' rights groups has existed for decades. Proponents of caps argue they stabilize the economy and keep insurance premiums low. Opponents argue that caps protect wrongdoers at the expense of the innocent.
The Brandt decision represents a pendulum swing back toward the rights of the individual. It highlights that while the legislature has the power to modify common law, it cannot do so in a way that strips citizens of their fundamental constitutional protections.
The Significance of the As-Applied Challenge
Legal scholars note the importance of the as-applied constitutional challenge used in Brandt. By arguing that the law was unconstitutional in this specific situation, rather than unconstitutional in its entirety, the plaintiff provided the court with a narrower, more palatable path to rule in her favor. This strategy may serve as a blueprint for future damages cap challenges. Attorneys may now look for other factual scenarios where the application of the cap yields a result so unjust that it violates the state constitution.
How Non-Economic Damages Are Calculated in Ohio Injury Cases
When a case goes to trial, the process of awarding damages involves several steps.
- Determination of Liability: The jury must first decide if the defendant is responsible for the injury.
- Economic Calculation: The jury adds up tangible costs—past and future medical care, lost income, and rehabilitation costs.
- Non-economic Assessment: The jury evaluates the severity of the pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
- Application of Law: Before the Brandt ruling, the judge would take the jury’s non-economic number and reduce it if it exceeded the statutory cap. Now, in cases involving qualified criminal acts, the judge may be required to leave the jury’s full award intact.
This process stresses how important it is to build a strong case for Ohio personal injury damages from the start. Evidence must be gathered not just to prove fault but to substantiate the depth of the human impact.
Why You Need an Ohio Personal Injury Attorney
The legal landscape regarding jury award limitations is evolving. What was true five years ago regarding damage caps may not be true today. This uncertainty makes legal representation indispensable.
Navigating Exceptions to the Cap
Determining whether a case fits within the Brandt exception requires deep knowledge of Ohio constitutional law and civil litigation. An experienced attorney must analyze the criminal history of the defendant, the nature of the charges, and the specific causal link between the crime and the injury.
Maximizing Settlement Value
Even if a case does not go to trial, the Brandt ruling affects settlement negotiations. Insurance companies and defense counsel are aware that their exposure to catastrophic injury damages and high non-economic awards has increased. A skilled Ohio personal injury attorney leverages this precedent to demand higher settlements for their clients.
Advocacy for Victims of Trauma
Cases involving severe emotional distress require a compassionate yet aggressive approach. Whether dealing with personal injury needs or complex assault cases, the goal is to ensure the victim’s story is heard and valued. The expansion of recovery options means that victims have a better chance of securing the resources they need for long-term healing.
What the Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Means for Injury Victims
Ultimately, Brandt v. Pompa restores a degree of power to the people. It reaffirms that the justice system’s primary role is to provide a remedy for wrongs, not to protect the financial interests of defendants who commit crimes.
For victims, this means:
- Greater Potential Compensation: The ability to recover the full amount awarded by a jury.
- Validation of Trauma: Legal recognition that psychological harm from criminal acts is severe and deserving of unlimited recourse.
- Deterrence: The prospect of uncapped damages may serve as a stronger deterrent against intentional misconduct.
The decision is a reminder that caps on injury settlements and verdicts are not absolute. With the right legal strategy and a clear understanding of the evolving precedents, justice is attainable even in the face of restrictive statutes.
Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, Is Just One Phone Call Away
Facing the aftermath of a severe injury can feel isolating, but you do not have to carry that weight alone. The physical pain is often accompanied by mounting financial stress and the confusion of a complex legal system that does not always prioritize your well-being. At Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, we believe your energy should be focused entirely on your healing, not on battling insurance adjusters or navigating dense court rulings. We step in to be your voice and your shield, ensuring that your story is heard and your suffering is acknowledged with the dignity it deserves.
Trying to interpret changing laws like the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision without professional guidance can leave significant compensation on the table. Insurance companies often count on victims being too overwhelmed to fight for the full value of their claim, but having a dedicated attorney changes that dynamic instantly. We bring deep experience and a relentless commitment to justice to your corner, fighting to secure every dollar you are entitled to under the law. One phone call can be the difference between a settlement that barely covers bills and a recovery that provides true security for your future. Contact us today for a free legal consultation.