We recently came across a post on a Bricker & Eckler blog, about a slightly less recent Ohio Supreme Court case, Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 963 N.E.2d 1270 (Ohio 2012), upholding the constitutionality of Ohio’s statute imposing mandatory bifurcation in punitive damages cases.  Havel held, after considerable back and forth:

[The statute] does not violate the Ohio Constitution and is constitutional because it is a substantive law that prevails over a procedural rule.  Inherent in our conclusion is rejection of the argument that dicta contained in Sheward [an infamous anti-tort reform decision], which described the former version of [the statute] as governing a procedural matter. . . . Sheward never considered the bifurcation question we confront in this case. Thus, we are not required to follow out-of-context dicta as precedent.

Havel, 963 N.E.2d 1279 (quoting and following Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420, 443 (2007)).  That’s an excellent result, but by addressing the constitutional issue in this way the Court did not have to pass on a more fundamental question that we’ve been pondering, which is whether a plaintiff has any constitutional right punitive damages in the first place.
In that regard, the Bricker post helped us out.  In discussing Havel, it mentioned that “Ohio’s caps on punitive damages have been upheld as constitutional (in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson).”
There’s that case again.Continue Reading Is There A Constitutional Right To Punitive Damages?