Text of Statute

-- Pre-HB 350 (Tort Reform Act) version of this section.

(A) As used in this section, "tort action" means a civil action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property. "Tort action" includes a product liability claim that is subject to sections 2307.71 to 2307.80 of the Revised Code, but does not include a civil action for damages for a breach of contract or another agreement between persons and does not include a tort action against a political subdivision of this state that is commenced under or subject to Chapter 2744. of the Revised Code.

(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, in a complaint filed in a tort action in a court of common pleas, the complainant shall include a demand for judgment for the relief to which he claims he is entitled, including, if applicable, the amount of any damages sought.

(2) If the complainant in a tort action in a court of common pleas seeks more than twenty-five thousand dollars in damages, he shall not specify in the demand for judgment for the relief to which he claims he is entitled the amount of the damages sought.

(C)(1) At any time twenty-eight days or later after the filing of a complaint in a tort action in a court of common pleas, if, in accordance with division (B)(2) of this section, the complainant has not specified the amount of the damages sought, any party against whom the action is brought may request the complainant to provide that party with a statement that sets forth the amount of the damages sought to be awarded against him. The request shall be made in a writing that shall be served upon the complainant.

(2) Within fifteen days after receipt of a written request as described in division (C)(1) of this section, a complainant shall prepare a written response that specifies the amount of the damages sought to be awarded against the requesting party, and shall cause that response to be served upon the requesting party. If such a response is not so prepared and served, then, after notice to the complainant, the requesting party may file a motion with the court of common pleas before which the tort action is pending that requests it to issue an order to the complainant to prepare and serve the response.

(D) If, in accordance with division (B)(2) of this section, the complainant in a tort action in a court of common pleas has not specified the amount of the damages sought, and whether or not a request was made to that complainant by a party against whom the action is brought pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, that complainant shall amend the complaint that he filed in the action to specify the amount of the damages sought. The amendment shall occur not later than seven days before the complainant applies for a judgment by default against any party to the action, or not later than seven days before the scheduled date of the trial of the action, whichever is applicable.

HISTORY: 142 v H 327 (Eff 10-20-87); 142 v H 1. Eff 1-5-88.

Not analogous to former RC § 2309.01 (RS § 5054; S&C 968; Revised Statutes 1880, § 5057; 51 v 57, § 83; 94 v 278, § 5054; GC § 11302; Bureau of Code Revision, 10-1-53), repealed, 133 v H 1201, eff 7-1-71.

  § 2309.01 Repealed. 

Repealed, 146 v H 350, § 2 [142 v H 327; 142 v H 1]. Eff 1-27-97.

This version of the statute was enacted in 1996 as part of Am. Sub. H.B. 350. In State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "Am. Sub. H.B. No. 350 (the Tort Reform Act) violates the one-subject provision of § 15(D), art II of the Ohio Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto." Because of that decision any pre-HB 350 versions and any post-HB 350 amendments to this statute are also shown.

This section concerned demand for judgment in tort actions.

The provisions of § 5(C)(2) of HB 350 (146 v --) read as follows:

SECTION 5. * * *

(C) * * * (2) It is the intent of the General Assembly in repealing former section 2309.01 of the Revised Code in this act to reflect the holding of the Supreme Court in Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 221, Cook v. Naveau (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 227, Bobich v. Convenient Food Mart 3-109 (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 228, and Stark v. Arn (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 354 that the provisions of that section are unconstitutional for being in conflict with Civil Rule 8 and, thus, being violative of Section 5(B) of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.

* * *