In Orren v. BWF Corporation, the Twelfth District recently affirmed a four million dollar judgment against a heavy-road highway contractor in a wrongful death action. The decedent was killed in an automobile accident in a construction zone on I-75. The state awarded the contractor with a contract to widen a nine-mile stretch of the interstate. In execution of the contract, the contractor removed large quantities of debris and dirt from the area, requiring dump trucks to be loaded in the median of the highway, and then merge into the fast lane or left-most lane of that section of I-75.
One evening, one of the drivers attempted to enter the fast lane of the highway when the decedent, the passenger in a car driven by her husband, was killed as her car collided with the back of the dump truck at about 80 miles per hour. The dump truck was going about 16 miles per hour at the time of impact. The Twelfth District focused much of the opinion on the several problems with the job site; mainly the lack of signage providing adequate warnings of trucks entering the highway at the site of the accident, or the lack of proper lighting on the dump truck. The warning signs were farther down the highway and the truck used its hazard flashers rather than higher powered oscillating or strobe lights. In addition, the lights and reflective tape on the dump truck were obscured with mud from the loading process. The decedent's estate filed a wrongful death action against, among others, the contractor and the driver. After hearing all the evidence, a jury determined that the decedents' husband was 51% at fault, the contractor 25% and ODOT 24% (although the plaintiffs did not ask for a recovery from ODOT). The jury awarded the estate $16 million, and apportioned a $4 million judgment against the contractor. The jury did not impose any liability against the driver of the dump truck.
The case is of limited value in light of the fact-specific nature of the decision, but the court of appeals overruled several arguments including the plaintiff's jury interrogatory seeking future mental anguish caused by the death of the daughter on behalf of her parents as beneficiaries. After reviewing the relevant section, the court concluded that R.C. 2125.02 did not preclude the claim for future mental anguish, noting that to hold otherwise would arbitrarily limit the mental anguish claim to the period between the death and the jury verdict.
