A $12 Million Verdict Worth Under $1 Million: How Ohio's Fault-Apportionment Rules Work

Published May 7, 2024 · Verdicts & Settlements

Headlines about multimillion-dollar verdicts can leave the impression that the family walks out of the courthouse with that amount. Often they do not. A verdict returned in Cleveland in late April shows, in painful detail, how Ohio's rules for dividing fault among many wrongdoers can turn a $12 million award into a far smaller recovery, and why the question of who is responsible, and by how much, is often as important as the amount of the verdict.

The case of Jordan Rodriguez

The facts below are drawn from reporting by Cleveland 19 News and News 5 Cleveland.

Jordan Rodriguez was 5 years old, developmentally disabled, and unable to speak. He died in September 2017. His body was found about three months later, buried in his mother's backyard in Cleveland. According to News 5 Cleveland, his mother and her boyfriend later pleaded guilty to several charges, including involuntary manslaughter.

A caseworker employed by Catholic Charities Corporation, Nancy Caraballo, had been assigned to check on Jordan. News 5 Cleveland reported that she took thousands of dollars in bribes tied to a food-stamp scheme in return for keeping quiet, falsified reports claiming she had made in-person visits, and pleaded guilty in connection with the case.

Jordan's estate filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in Cuyahoga County. Cleveland 19 identified the defendants at trial as Larissa Rodriguez, Christopher Rodriguez, Ms. Caraballo, and Catholic Charities. Two other entities, MetroHealth and the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, were not defendants at trial but were included when the jury divided responsibility.

The verdict and the fault split

On April 23, 2024, the jury awarded at least $12 million in compensatory damages, as reported by Cleveland 19. According to the estate's attorney, as reported by Cleveland 19, the jury assigned responsibility this way:

The jury later returned to consider punitive damages against Catholic Charities. News 5 Cleveland reported that the jury declined to award them, finding that Catholic Charities did not act with "actual malice." The verdict may still be the subject of post-trial motions or an appeal.

How Ohio divides fault among many wrongdoers

Two Ohio statutes do the work here.

Step one: the jury assigns percentages to everyone. Under R.C. 2307.23(A), the jury must state the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff, to each defendant, and also to each person "from whom the plaintiff does not seek recovery in this action." The percentages must add up to 100. That last category explains why MetroHealth and the county agency appear in the table even though they were not defendants at trial. Under R.C. 2307.23(C), a defendant may raise as a defense that part of the fault belongs to someone who is not in the case, sometimes called an "empty chair."

Step two: the law decides who pays what. R.C. 2307.22 sets the rules:

• Noneconomic damages (in a wrongful-death case, the family's loss of society, companionship and mental anguish) are always divided by percentage. Under R.C. 2307.22(C), each defendant pays only its proportionate share.
• Economic damages (lost support, medical and funeral expenses) can be collected in full from a defendant more than 50 percent at fault, or from a defendant against whom an intentional tort claim was alleged and established. Other defendants pay only their share, under R.C. 2307.22(A) and (B).

Wrongful-death actions are not subject to Ohio's caps on noneconomic damages, under R.C. 2315.18(H)(3), so the jury's figure for the family's loss is not reduced by a cap. But the apportionment rules still control who pays it.

The math, as an illustration

The following is our own illustration, not a reported figure, and it simplifies a real case that may involve facts we do not know, such as how the award was divided between economic and noneconomic damages, any earlier settlements, and post-trial rulings.

In a child's wrongful-death case, most of the damages are typically noneconomic. If nearly all of the $12 million is noneconomic, then:

• The mother (52%) is the only party more than 50 percent at fault, so she could be held responsible for the full economic damages and for her 52 percent of the rest. But a parent who has pleaded guilty in a child's death is rarely able to pay a multimillion-dollar judgment.
• The county agency and MetroHealth (26% combined) were not defendants at trial. Their shares are assigned to them, but no judgment is entered against them in this case.
• Christopher Rodriguez and the caseworker (14% combined) are individuals whose ability to pay is doubtful.
• Catholic Charities (8%), the organization most likely to have insurance and assets, would owe roughly its 8 percent share, about $960,000.

On that illustration, a $12 million verdict could translate into less than $1 million in practical recovery from the defendant most able to pay.

Why this matters for your case

This is not a story about a family losing. A jury heard the evidence and held a caregiving organization and its employee responsible for their part in a child's death. But it shows three lessons that apply to every serious injury and wrongful-death case in Ohio:

1. Identify every responsible party early. A share of fault assigned to someone who is not a defendant is usually money the family cannot collect in that case. Investigation, and in government cases immunity analysis, must start early so that claims are brought against everyone who can be held accountable, within the deadlines. Our page on claims against the government in Ohio explains the special rules that apply when a public agency is involved, and our 2023 post on the Smathers decision discussed caseworker immunity in a different child-welfare case.
2. Fight the empty chair. Defendants have every incentive to shift percentages onto parties who are absent or cannot pay. Evidence about each party's conduct, presented clearly, is how those percentages are kept fair.
3. Look for insurance and solvent defendants. A verdict is only as valuable as the ability to collect it. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains why insurance limits and comparative fault drive real-world value.

What this means for you

If your family has lost someone because more than one person or organization failed them, the way the case is built, from who is sued to how fault is proven, will shape what your family actually receives. Our wrongful death practice focuses on that from the first day.