Ohio Supreme Court asked to overturn tort reform law that lowered Brook Park child rapist’s judgment from $20 - cleveland.com
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The 2005 tort reform law that the Ohio General Assembly passed to limit financial judgements in court cases is unconstitutional when applied to many people who were sexually assaulted as children, the attorney for a survivor argued Wednesday morning before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Amanda Brandt, who was one of many children abused by Roy Pompa of Brook Park, wants the court to overturn the law in her case and similar cases as hers, her attorney, Robert S. Peck, said.
“This is a catastrophic injury, with ramifications that are life-altering for the rest of Amanda Brandt’s life,” Peck argued before the court.
Brandt sued Pompa in civil court in 2018, after he was convicted and sentenced in criminal court for abusing her and other children. The jury determined Brandt - who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, constant nightmares and anxiety -- was entitled to $134 million.
But the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge who oversaw the trial cited Ohio’s tort reform law and slashed a portion of the verdict from $20 million to $250,000. The law, passed by the legislature in 2005, limits the amount a victim can collect for “nonmonetary” losses and injuries, such as pain and suffering.
Peck said that in many child rape cases, the tort reform law contradicts the civil justice system’s role in making victims whole and curtails the rights of survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The law undermines the jury’s constitutional role in deciding cases because its verdict is undone by the tort reform law
Peck said the 2005 law denied his client the constitutional right of due process of the law, equal protection under the law, trial by jury and other rights guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution.
However, the attorney for Pompa noted that a 2016 Ohio Supreme Court decision upheld tort reform limits in most child sexual abuse cases, and that Brandt’s case didn’t significantly veer from the main legal arguments in the earlier case.
Life without parole
Pompa is serving life without parole for nearly 100 counts of raping, kidnapping and gross sexual imposition of girls ages 6 to 13.
Pompa abused Brandt, who was friends with Pompa’s daughter, dozens of times from May 2005 to November 2005, when she was between the ages of 11 and 12 years old. He recorded video on at least eight occasions.
Proponents of tort reform laws argue limits to the amount of money courts can award victims is necessary to reduce frivolous lawsuits and create consistency in judgements. For cases in which companies are sued for injuries caused by their products, reform proponents say that unnecessarily large financial awards hurt companies and the economy.
The 2016 decision that Brandt’s case is being compared with is known as Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware.
In that case, a split Supreme Court ruled that reducing $3.5 million in damages to a woman who was assaulted by a pastor as a 15-year-old to $350,000 was appropriate under the tort reform law.
Yet, the court said in its decision, “there may exist a set of facts under which application of the statutory damage caps would prove unconstitutional.”
Peck said Brandt’s case qualified as an exception.
Justices remarks
Peck’s attorney, Marion H. Little Jr., told the court that if the tort reform law was upheld in the Simpkins case, it should be upheld in Brandt’s case.
“The plaintiff appears before this court today with a $114 million remedy,” Little said, if the judges set aside the $20 million for the $250,000. “Now they mince the words ‘verdict,’ etc. There is a judgement in her favor.”
Justice Melody Stewart asked Little whether he thinks the court should allow tort reform exceptions mentioned in the Simpkins case only when child rape cases have significantly smaller judgements.
“We don’t know what the future cases may hold, your honor,” Little said. “But we know what the facts are in this case, and the facts do matter. And the facts in this case are she has a $114 million remedy. You cannot say she was denied her day in court. You cannot say she was denied a meaningful remedy.”
Pompa has said in legal filings that he doesn’t have $100 million to pay Brandt.
Peck said that he hasn’t tried to collect the $114 million yet, so he cannot say if Pompa has real estate, investments, insurance policies, anticipated inheritances or other places from which he can find money for Brandt. He said he’s waiting for the final disposition of the case, which would come after the Ohio Supreme Court rules.
Little rejected the premise that Brandt had fallen into addiction and homelessness and other challenges due to Pompa’s sexual abuse, saying that there was evidence in the case when it was in the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals that Brandt made “a decision to basically be homeless, be in an abusive relationship with a boyfriend,” which resulted in drug addiction.
“But weren’t those already presented to the jury and the jury made a decision?” Justice Jennifer Brunner asked. “... My point is the jury made a decision that she was injured and to what extent. So why do we have to reexamine that issue if the jury made that decision?”
Justice Patrick DeWine said that if the court were to overturn tort reform in Brandt’s case, it would be overturning four previous rulings.
Friend-of-court briefs
The Ohio Association for Justice and American Association for Justice, which represent trial attorneys, submitted a brief supporting Brandt’s legal arguments. The Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children also filed amicus briefs.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Product Liability Advisory Council wrote briefs supporting Pampa.
The Supreme Court will decide the case in coming months.
Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.
source: https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/03/ohio-supreme-court-asked-to-overturn-tort-reform-law-that-lowered-brook-park-child-rapists-judgement-from-20-million-to-250000.html
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.