Ohio Supreme Court reinstates $20 million award to woman who was sexually abused as

COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday reversed a lower court’s ruling that a $20 million jury verdict in a child sexual abuse case be slashed to $250,000.

The court’s 4-3 split decision takes issue with the 2005 tort reform that the Ohio General Assembly passed to cap damages in certain cases. The legislature was concerned that excessive damanges were increasing the cost of doing business.

Friday’s ruling is narrow and based on the specifics of the case involving Amanda Brandt, who was seeking damages from her abuser Roy Pompa of Brook Park, writes Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who wrote the majority ruling.

Concurring with O’Connor, a Republican who is leaving the court at the end of the year, were Democratic Justices Michael Donnelly, Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner.

Republican Justice Sharon Kennedy, who will be the next chief justice, wrote a dissent shared by Republican Pat DeWine. Republican Justice Patrick Fisher wrote a separate dissent.

“I got what has been on my Christmas list,’’ Brandt said in a statement from a spokeswoman. “This is a huge victory, and it’s been a long time coming.’’

The legislature’s concern, when it passed tort reform, about the rising cost of general liability insurance policies purchased by businesses “is unrealistic because coverage for the types of injuries that Brandt sustained in this case is extremely uncommon and, even if a business’s liability-insurance policy were in play, most policies now contain exclusions for intentional conduct committed by the insured and, specifically, for abuse or molestation,” O’Connor wrote.

Brandt sued Pompa in civil court in 2018, after he was convicted and sentenced in criminal court for abusing her and other children. The jury determined Brandt – who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, constant nightmares and anxiety, struggled with a drug addiction, and was homeless for a year as a young adult — was entitled to $134 million.

A portion of the verdict totaling $20 million was for “nonmonetary” losses and injuries, such as pain and suffering. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge who oversaw the trial cited Ohio’s tort reform law when slashing the $20 million to $250,000.

Yet Brandt’s attorneys argued before the Ohio Supreme Court that the tort reform law contradicts the civil justice system’s role in making victims whole and curtails the rights of child sexual abuse survivors.

O’Connor agreed, noting the Ohio Constitution’s Article I, Section 16 guarantees every person the right to a remedy “for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation.”

“For this limited class of litigants – people like Brandt who were victimized at a very young age and who bring civil actions to recover damages from the persons who have been found guilty of those intentional criminal acts – the constitutional guarantee of due course of law is unjustly withheld” if the state’s tort reform caps are followed, she wrote.

The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals found that on many occasions Pompa, the father of one of Brandt’s friends, put illicit substances in Brandt’s drinks before she went to sleep in order to commit sexual acts without her knowing or being fully aware, between May 2005 and November 2005, when Brandt was 11 and 12 years old. However, Brandt was aware and could recall occasions of abuse.

Pompa admitted to using a “spy cam” to view his daughter’s friends when they visited the house, according to court documents.

Pompa is serving life without parole for nearly 100 counts of raping, kidnapping and gross sexual imposition of girls ages 6 to 13. Pompa’s attorney’s argument before the Supreme Court that he will not be able to pay all of the judgment is irrelevant, O’Connor writes.

“Any suggestion otherwise serves to prejudice the reader and should be seen for what it is: a distraction from the legal question before this court,” she writes.

John Finch, one of Brandt’s attorneys, said Friday evening that with the $20 million restored, she will be potentially be able to collect about $134 million total. It’s not likely she will see all that money, however.

“But the case is bigger than Amanda Brandt,” he said Friday evening. “Amanda Brandt to me is a hero. She’s opened the door for other children who’ve been abused to hold predators and their enablers accountable.”

Finch said that for some people $250,000 in damages isn’t a lot of money, but $20 million serves as a deterrent against child sexual abuse.

Kennedy, in her dissent, said the abuse Brandt suffered is appalling and there is no doubt she suffered.

“However, as members of the third branch of government, we must ‘temper our empathy’ and resolve legal matters within the confines of the law,” she wrote, referring to an older court decision. “Because the majority opinion fails to do so, we must respectfully dissent.”

Kennedy wrote that the General Assembly provided exceptions to the cap in noneconomic damages, which includes losing the use of a limb, permanent and substantial physical deformity and an injury that permanently prevents a person from being able to independently care for themselves.

“So unless the victim has suffered from an injury that falls under one of the exceptions listed (in the law,) the victims compensatory noneconomic-damages award” should be capped, Kennedy wrote.

Fischer wrote in his dissent that the “majority opinion abandons this court’s role as impartial jurist and exceeds the scope of its authority.”

He also expressed empathy to Brandt, but noted the court has looked at noneconomic damage caps in other child sexual abuse cases and upheld them.

“Brandt argues that her reduced noneconomic-damages award violates her rights to a jury trial, to open courts, to a remedy, to due process, and to equal protection,” Fischer writes. “To prevail, Brandt must prove by clear and convincing evidence (the 2005 law) is unconstitutional when applied to her particular set of facts.”

She didn’t meet this burden, he wrote.