Ohio Personal Injury Law Reference
This page collects the Ohio statutes that most often decide the timing and value of a personal injury case.
Deadlines That End Cases
Ohio Revised Code section 2305.10
Statute of limitations for bodily injury
An action for bodily injury or injury to personal property must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues. The statute contains its own discovery rules for latent-exposure injuries, and wrongful death actions carry a separate two-year period under section 2125.02.
PRACTICE NOTE Two years is shorter than several neighboring states, and Ohio courts enforce it strictly. The accrual and discovery questions are where late cases live or die, so lock the timeline down at intake.
Fault and Recovery
Ohio Revised Code section 2315.33
Modified comparative fault
Contributory fault does not bar recovery so long as the plaintiff’s share of fault is not greater than the combined fault of all other persons from whom recovery is sought; damages are then reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own percentage. Past the fifty percent line, recovery is barred entirely.
PRACTICE NOTE As in Florida, the space between 50 and 51 percent is the entire case. Build the liability record accordingly, and remember the comparison is against the combined fault of everyone else, which matters in multi-defendant cases.
Ohio Revised Code section 2315.18
Caps on noneconomic damages
In most tort actions, noneconomic damages are capped at the greater of 250,000 dollars or three times economic damages, subject to a maximum of 350,000 dollars per plaintiff and 500,000 dollars per occurrence. The caps do not apply where the injuries include permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, loss of a bodily organ system, or a permanent physical functional injury that prevents the person from independently caring for themselves.
PRACTICE NOTE In any serious Ohio case, the catastrophic-injury exception is the main event: whether the injuries clear the statutory threshold often matters more to case value than liability itself. Develop the medical proof on deformity, loss of use, and self-care from the first treating records forward.
Case Law That Shapes Ohio Injury Cases
Robinson v. Bates
112 Ohio St.3d 17, 2006-Ohio-6362 [Lanzinger, J.]
Ohio’s answer to the billed-versus-paid question. Both the amount originally billed and the amount a provider accepted as full payment are admissible to prove the reasonable value of medical treatment, and the collateral source rule does not bar evidence of the negotiated write-off because no one ever paid it. The jury may find the reasonable value to be the billed amount, the amount accepted, or something in between. The opinion also confirmed that a landlord’s statutory duty to repair is not erased by the open and obvious doctrine.
PRACTICE NOTE This is a different world from California’s rule, where the amount accepted caps recovery for insured treatment. In Ohio the full bill goes to the jury alongside the paid amount, which makes the presentation of medical specials a genuine advocacy opportunity rather than an arithmetic exercise. Know which state’s rule you are standing in.
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.
99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573 [Sweeney, J.]
The open and obvious doctrine survives comparative negligence in Ohio. Where a danger is open and obvious, the property owner owes no duty of care at all, so the case never reaches breach, causation, or any comparison of fault. The doctrine goes to the threshold question of duty and focuses on the nature of the condition itself, not the plaintiff’s conduct in encountering it. The court affirmed summary judgment for a store whose visible guardrail bracket tripped a customer at the entrance.
PRACTICE NOTE Armstrong is the wall every Ohio premises case has to climb. The counterattack runs through attendant circumstances that divert attention, conditions not truly discoverable on ordinary inspection, and statutory duties, such as a landlord’s duty to repair, that the doctrine does not reach.
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948 [Moyer, C.J.]
The decision that made Ohio’s damage caps stick. After decades of striking down earlier tort reform packages, the court upheld the noneconomic damage limits of Revised Code section 2315.18 and the punitive damage limits of section 2315.21 against facial challenges under the jury trial, remedy, open courts, due process, equal protection, and separation of powers provisions of the Ohio Constitution. The catastrophic injury exception was central to the result, answering the earlier objection that caps unfairly load the cost of reform onto the most severely injured.
PRACTICE NOTE Arbino settled the facial question but not the as-applied one, and later litigation continues to test whether the caps can constitutionally be applied to particular plaintiffs. In any serious Ohio case, preserve an as-applied constitutional challenge alongside the fight to bring the injuries within the catastrophic exception.
On the Docket for the Next Review
Coming in future updates:
- Brandt v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525 as-applied challenges to the damage caps
- Ohio Revised Code section 2315.21 punitive damages limits
- Ohio Revised Code section 3929.06 post-judgment actions against insurers
This reference states general principles of Ohio law for informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not address the facts of any particular case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case law and statutes change; always confirm current authority before relying on it. For advice about a specific matter, contact Stuck Law Firm, APLC for a free consultation.
Questions About an Ohio Case? Call (419) 408-4024
Last reviewed: August 20, 2026