Legal Opinion · Dissent

Whetstone v. Binner (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 2016No. 2014-1462Published

1DissentLanzinger, J.

*402{¶ 39} Even assuming that general deterrence is on equal footing with the goals of punishing and deterring the tortfeasor by awarding punitive damages, none of these purposes is served by meting out punishment to the dead. Because I believe that punitive damages cannot be imposed against the estate of a deceased tortfeasor, I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 40} Until the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, Ohio courts have taken the position that punitive damages were not available against a deceased tortfeasor. Mongold v. Estate of Gilbert, 114 Ohio Misc.2d 32, 36, 758 N.E.2d…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Hewlett v. GeorgeMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. BreedenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. Cabe v. LunichOhio Supreme Court · 1994

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API