 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche11/5/1997
extinguish and, consequently, there is no basis for MetroHealth to compel Hoffmann's contribution.
With respect to the second certified question, it is true that "but for" Hoffmann's status as a defendant in the underlying tort action there could be no res judicata bar. That res judicata operates in favor of a party because he prevailed in an earlier lawsuit, however, is neither "intolerable" nor a "paradox." In this case, res judicata, although different in character, acted exactly like the statute of limitations in that it - not the later settlement release - extinguished any potential liability of Hoffmann to the tort victim.
Additionally, the majority rejects the plain language of the statute based on a hypothetical scenario where a plaintiff in a tort action "wait to file a complaint until a claim against one of the defendants, but not the other, is time-barred, thereby destroying the disfavored defendant's statutory right to contribution." That a circumstance may exist where application of a statute according to its terms would be undesirable, however, does not give this court authority to ignore the statute's manifest purpose as revealed by its unambiguous language. As stated in State ex rel. Foster v. Evatt (1944), 144 Ohio St. 65, 29 O.O. 4, 56 N.E.2d 265, paragraphs seven and eight of the syllabus:
"Courts have no legislative authority and should not make their office of expounding statutes a cloak for supplying something omitted from an act by the General Assembly.
"There is no authority under any rule of statutory construction to add to, enlarge, supply, expand, extend or improve the provisions of the statute to meet a situation not provided for." (Citation omitted.)
Applying the plain language of former R.C. 2307.31 and 2307.32 to the facts of this certified case, I conclude that the settlement release obtained by MetroHealth on Hoffmann's behalf did not act to extinguish Hoffmann's liability. Anssuch liability already had been extinguished by the statute of limitations and res judicata. Accordingly, I would answer both certified questions in the negative.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|