The NAM and other business organizations asked the Ohio Supreme Court to declare that state's 10-year statute of repose to be constitutional. The plaintiff suffered injuries while using a 30-year old trim press and sued his employer and the manufacturers of the machine. A federal court submitted eight questions of law to the Ohio Supreme Court, including ones involving the validity of the statute of repose.
The NAM argued that it is the prerogative of the Ohio legislature to decide broad public policy, including state tort law. When states formed, they delegated to the courts some of their authority to develop common law, but always retained the position as the chief policymaking branch of state government. The legislature is uniquely qualified to weigh and balance the many competing societal, economic and policy considerations involved in changing tort law, while courts are better able to decide individual disputes.
The brief warned about a nationwide effort under way to nullify legislative attempts to change tort law. Statutes of repose are important safeguards against stale litigation, and common sense indicates that a product that has been used reliably for years will ultimately malfunction for reasons outside the control of the manufacturer, such as ordinary wear and tear, improper maintenance or misuse. A statute of repose can help level the playing field between Ohio manufacturers and their foreign competitors, since our nation's principal competitors -- the European Community, Australia and Japan -- have adopted 10-year statutes. Our brief also warned against courts that use an expansive view of their role to override legislation and impose their own economic policy views -- as the Supreme Court did in the highly discredited period known as the Lochner era.
On Feb. 21, 2008, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Ohio’s 10-year statute of repose. However, the court held that retroactive application of the statute of repose to bar a claim for injuries that a plaintiff suffered before the statute took effect was unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits retroactive application of a law when such application infringes on the exercise of a substantive right. Thus, in this particular case, the 10-year statute of repose will not bar Groch’s claim against the trim press manufacturer.