 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McAdow v. Abbott3/27/2001
ental right to trial by jury. The right to trial by jury in a negligence and personal injury action is a fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution. See Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415, 422. However, the distinction in the savings statute based on the timing of a dismissal does not impermissibly deny the right to trial by jury in this case. The record shows that appellants' original complaint was dismissed approximately seven months before the statute of limitations expired. But, for whatever reason, the current complaint was not filed until the limitation period had run. We do not see how the savings statute prevented or burdened appellants in filing their current complaint within the time frame provided in R.C. 2305.10 and thus exercising their right to have their case tried before a jury. Therefore, we find that, as applied to appellants, the savings statute does not implicate the fundamental right to trial by jury under an equal protection analysis. Furthermore, appellants do not argue that they are members of a suspect class.
Thus, we proceed under the minimal scrutiny of the rational basis test. Under this test, statutory distinctions which treat similarly situated individuals in a different manner are constitutionally permissible in the context of equal protection if any rational, non-arbitrary and noncapricious reason can support the distinction. See Morris v. Savoy (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 684, 711, citing State v. Buckley (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 128. The distinction pointed out by appellants in this case is that the statute applies to those individuals whose complaints are dismissed after the statute of limitations has run on their cause of action; but does not apply to those individuals whose complaints are dismissed before the statute of limitations has run. In essence the appellants contend that distinguishing between litigants based upon when their case was dismissed violates the equal protection clause of the federal and/or state constitutions. This contention is meritless.
The distinction appears straightforward and rational to us. There is no need for an extension of time when a complaint is dismissed before the statute of limitations has run; an individual still has the opportunity to re-file the claim within the statutory period. It is only when a complaint is dismissed after the statute of limitations has expired that the need for a savings statute even arises. Accord Boron v. Brooks Beverage Management, Inc. (June 30, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-902, unreported (holding that " he distinction made by [R.C. 2305.19] is neither arbitrary nor capricious in that it merely distinguishes between those who actually need saving and those who do not.") Having found a rational basis to support the statute, we overrule appellants' constitutional challenge to R.C. 2305.19.
For all the foregoing reasons, the appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that Appellee recover of Appellants costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Adams County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Kline, J. & Evans, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion
William H. Harsha,
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|