|
As you are aware, my January 2007 You Auto Know® focused on Am.Sub. Senate Bill 117 and its proposed limit on the non-economic damages available to consumers who allege violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (hereinafter “CSPA”). R.C. 1345.09 allows for a consumer who establishes a violation of the CSPA to recover an amount equal to three times his actual damages.
In November of 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that “damages” under R.C. 1345.09 includes non-economic damages as well as economic damages. Whitaker vs. M.T. Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio State 3rd 117, 2006–Ohio–541. On December 26, 2006, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 117 which included a provision limiting the amount of non-economic damages to $5,000.00 that a consumer could recover for a CSPA violation. Outgoing Governor Taft neither signed nor vetoed the bill. Incoming Governor Strickland attempted to veto the bill on January 8, 2007 (his first day in office) – 10 days after the bill was first presented to the governor’s office. However, on August 1, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Governor Strickland’s veto was invalid, concluding that “the ten-day time limit after which the bill becomes law unless vetoed by the governor runs from the date the legislative session was adjourned, not from the date on which the bill was presented to the governor.” State, ex rel., Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 2007-Ohio-3780. The court wrote that the ten-day period to veto the bill ended, at the latest, on January 6, 2007. “Accordingly, when the governor attempted to veto the bill on January 8, 2007, the bill had already become law, and the Governor lacked authority under Section 16, Article II, to veto it.” Id. The Court directed Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, to accept and process the bill as duly enacted legislation.
However, in an August 31, 2007 ruling on a motion for reconsideration filed by Secretary of State Brunner, the Court found that "given the unique facts of this case ***Am.Sub.S.B. 117 ***was a nullity from the date of the veto, January 8, 2007, until the date of our decision, August 1, 2007." The court found that its August 1, 2007 decision "unintentionally deprived the citizens of the right to referendum that they would have enjoyed were it not for the unavoidable delays associated with judicial review." As a result, the court awarded the public ninety (90) days from August 1, 2007 to pursue a referendum to place the issue on the ballot.
Voters would have to circulate a petition and obtain signatures equaling at least six percent (6%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election. A valid petition would mean that the law would not go into effect unless approved by majority vote in the first regular or general election held more than sixty (60) days after the filing of the petition.
If the voters do not support the law, then courts and/or judges could award non-economic damages on the scale of pain and suffering damages as seen in medical malpractice cases. It is amazing that elected officials wonder why Ohio can’t attract new businesses with this type of anti-business sentiment.
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. |
