|
Scenario: As you are aware, my November 2006, You Auto Know® focused on the case of Whittaker vs. M. T. Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio St. 3rd 117, 2006-Ohio-541 where the Supreme Court greatly expanded the damages that a consumer can recover in a Consumer Sales Practices Act case. Briefly, the court stated that the consumer who is harmed under RC §1345 et seq., specifically §1345.02 and §1345.03, can recover both economic and non-economic damages under §1345.09 (B). Obviously, this decision was held in high regard by Plaintiff's attorneys in that now they can recover damages for a consumer's emotional distress, public embarrassment or damages of the like.
As you are aware, the Bill was sent to former Governor Taft who, allegedly due to the crunch of his final days in office, never signed the bill into law. If a bill is not executed by the governor within ten days, it becomes law. When Governor Strickland was sworn in on January 8, 2007 he vetoed the bill, indicating he did not like the amendments. It is a fact that no governor in Ohio's history has ever vetoed a piece of legislation left over from the prior administration. The primary question facing the veto and the legislature is whether or not the governor has the constitutional right to veto Senate Bill 117. Article 2, § 16 of the State Constitution specifically provides a ten-day time period in which the governor can veto a piece of legislation. However, the timing of Strickland's veto and when the clock began to run is a matter of controversy. The new Attorney General indicated that he believed that the veto was proper. In order for the veto to have validity, it has to be officially filed. Therefore, the governor's office shipped the veto to the Secretary of State, to the leader of the house and to any member of the house. Therefore, the governor's office provided a copy of the veto to a democratic representative from Toledo. The representative further slid the papers under the door of the Senate President.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that independent businesses can file an action against the governor's office to stop the veto; however, it is the legislative body that must file an action through a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the veto. It must be noted that the main provisions of Senate Bill 117 are to limit non-economic damages under the CSPA to $5,000. Although there are other attachments regarding manufacturers and service companies for automobile, motorcycle and RV dealers, the cap on the non-economic damages is an important step in limiting runaway damages. At this point, it is unknown whether or not the legislature will take any action or not. However, if it does not take any action, then the mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court under the Whittaker decision will be in full force and effect.
As always, these are highlights of the law and are not to be construed as containing the entire law. This is not a legal opinion. Contact your attorney if you need specific information or advice.
|
