Ohio House Bill HB179

Ohio 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/22/23
• Report Pass: 6/20/23
• Engrossed: 1/10/24
• Report Pass: 6/26/24
• Enrolled: 6/26/24
• Passed: 7/24/24
• Passed: 10/24/24

Caption

Regards vicarious liability in tort actions; statutes of repose

Impact

The impact of HB 179 is expected to streamline the legal process regarding claims against parties that may share liability in tort scenarios, ultimately benefiting defendants by reducing the time frame in which lawsuits can be filed. Additionally, by clarifying the distinction between primarily and secondarily liable parties, the bill aims to encourage more immediate legal responses and discourage the prolonged litigation that can arise from the ambiguity around liability relationships. This change is particularly relevant for healthcare and legal sectors where the implications of vicarious liability can lead to significant financial consequences.

Summary

House Bill 179 aims to amend existing state laws regarding vicarious liability in tort actions and to clarify the application of statutes of repose. Specifically, the bill seeks to overrule a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision that allowed for extended time limits on filing claims when a defendant is absent or conceals their identity. By amending section 2305.15 and enacting section 2307.241 of the Revised Code, the bill redefines how limitations are calculated, particularly in the context of professional liability claims against various professionals, including medical and dental practitioners.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 179 among legislative members appears to lean towards support, viewing it as a necessary reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits that stem from unclear interpretations of liability law. Advocates for the bill argue that it provides essential protections for employers and entities that often face claims based on the actions of their employees or agents. Conversely, some opponents express concern that limiting the ability to pursue claims could undermine accountability among professionals and diminish the recourse available to injured parties.

Contention

Notable points of contention arise from the bill's approach to statutes of repose in relation to medical and professional negligence claims. Critics argue that the amendments could complicate access to justice for individuals seeking to file legitimate claims, especially in cases where the defendant's absence or misconduct has made it difficult for plaintiffs to come forward within the traditional limitation period. Moreover, the bill's objectives around streamlining processes might inadvertently prioritize the interests of defendants over the rights of injured parties, eliciting significant debate during discussions in legislative sessions.