 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rechenbach v. Haftkowycz1/30/1995
he only concrete figure named in appellant's complaint was $25,000, their recovery is limited to that amount. Appellant further contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co., supra, supports his argument. Based upon the language of that case, however, this court does not agree.
The Rockey court stated in pertinent part the following:
"Prior to enactment of [R.C. 2309.011, plaintiff had the option of filing an amended demand for judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 54(C). However, since plaintiff could specify an actual amount of damages in the original complaint under Civ.R. 8(A), which Civ.R. 8(A) requires plaintiff to do, he did not have to amend the demand for judgment at a later date. With the enactment of R.C. 2309.01, plaintiff is required to amend the complaint in order to state an actionable cause and comply with Civ.R. 8(A). This additional requirement has led to harsh results in that plaintiffs who specify no actual damages in the original complaint in an attempt to comply with R. C. 2309.01, face a judgment for zero damages when they do not later comply with the R.C. 2309.01 requirement that they amend the complaint. Regardless of whether these situations are framed as failure to comply with Civ.R. 54(C) or as noncompliance with R.C. 2309.01, they are all glaring examples of the inherent unfairness which results from the R.C. 2309.01 requirement that plaintiff specify no damages in the original complaint when those damages are in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars." (Emphasis added.) Id., 66 Ohio St.3d at 224, 611 N.E.2d at 791.
Thus, the Supreme Court's decision in Rockey obviously both contemplated and encompassed a situation such as that which occurred in this case. In Rockey, the court made it clear that plaintiffs were not to be faulted for their failure to amend their prayer for damages since they were attempting to deal with an "inherently unfair" scheme. This court finds support for such an interpretation in Bobich v. Convenient Food Mart 3-109 (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 228, 611 N.E.2d 794; both thsfact situation and the argument raised in Bobich precisely parallel those of the case sub judice.
Therefore, appellant's third assignment of error also lacks merit and is accordingly overruled.
The judgment of the trial court in App. No. 66858 is affirmed and the appeal in App. No. 66806 is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
NUGENT and PARRINO, JJ., concur.
THOMAS J. PARRINO, J., retired, of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
|