Injured Worker Challenges Tort Reform in Court

Kia Franklin

Injured Worker Challenges Tort Reform in Court

When does your right to sue for an injury caused by another’s negligence begin and end?

A GM worker in Toledo, Ohio who was permanently disfigured when a trim press crushed his forearm and wrist thought the answer was 2 years, the statute of limitations. He was wrong.

Because he didn’t sue the manufacturer of the press in the month between his injury and the passage of a new tort “reform” law, he was shut out of court. The new law prohibits suits related to products that have been in the owner’s possession for more than ten years. The Ohio Supreme Court is considering his challenge to the law, the second challenge since its passage in 2005.

According to the Toledo Blade, one Justice noted that this is a clear case of retroactive application of the law. Apparently instead of recovering in the month after his injury, the man should have been filing his lawsuit.

But timing issues aside, another Justice had questions and concerns about the substantive implications of this law: “As a practical matter, what remedy is left if you can’t go against the manufacturer of the product that caused the problem?” The defense lawyer argues that workers may still sue those in charge of maintaining the equipment. But that doesn’t really answer the question because it ignores the difference between injuries caused by negligent maintenance and those caused by design defects that only the manufacturer know about.

This is certainly a case to follow.

Posted at 1:11 PM, Sep 20, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

There is nothing inherently wrong with a statute of repose. Many industrial products stay in use for many years. Is it fair to hold the manufacturer of a product manufactured 25 years ago to the technological and standards in force today ?

I agree that some states have repose statutes that are much too short (for instance, 4 years on construction in Georgia)but when a product has been in use for ten or fifteen years without problems, clearly the only reason to suck the manufacturer or builder into the litigation is to get another "deep pocket" into the picture, particularly in states where "joint and several" liability is still the rule (more accurately known as "two wrongs do make a right")

Is it fair to allow the "tort fixers" to malign the rights of citizens?

Maybe outdated equipment is a recipe for disaster for the user.

I'm still stunned by the promoters of this nefarious idea that Americans no longer should have an unfettered use of the court system to address their grievances.

Oddly, Americans seem to be falling for this neo-Nazi claptrap.

I can see the day when "reform'(for our own good I'm told)can dictate a settlement of a dollar for the injured worker.

When the business, company, employer or whatever name you want to call it has no or limited liability in matters of safety of products, working conditions, or quality of equipment then the blood will flow.

But it will be better for all of us we're told.