The latest law to fail the constitutional litmus test was a 3-year-old Ohio statute that the state Supreme Court said "threatens the judiciary as an independent branch of government and tears at the fabric of our Constitution." State ex. Rel Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, No. 97-2419, decided Aug. 16, 1999.

Justice Alice Robie Resnick, in a forceful majority opinion citing precedents dating back to 1802, declared the legislation had "boldly seized the power of constitutional adjudication, appropriated the authority to establish rules of court and overrule judicial declarations of unconstitutionality . . ."

In its opinion, the Ohio court cited provisions of the Ohio state constitution, which provides that "every person, for an injury done him, . . . shall have remedy by due course of law." Article I, section 16. The law, instead, "threatens the judiciary as an independent branch of government and tears at the fabric of our Constitution."

That unusually broad law, House Bill 350, which took effect Jan. 1, 1997, was the handiwork of business and medical groups, insurance companies and GOP leaders. The law abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages; capped non-economic damages via a pair of formulas involving the nature of the particular injury; set a 15-year statute of repose for most product liability claims and a six-year limit for medical claims and professional malpractice claims; and, overall, made it more difficult to bring a civil lawsuit to court.

The Ohio landmark decision comes on the heels of similar rulings by courts in Indiana, Oregon and Illinois. Generally these rulings are insulated from review by the Supreme Court of the United States because of the arguments resting strictly on state constitutional grounds, but backers of the law are thinking of creative ways to get it to the nation’s highest court. Victor E. Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association in Washington, has said because the constitutional rights of all U.S. citizens to live under a republican form of government are impacted, he is looking into a federal court challenge.

And, big business groups and insurance lobbyists have said they are reinvigorated in trying to get another measure passed in Ohio while at the same time taking aim at changing the make-up of the judiciary, even going so far as to target Justice Resnick’s re-election campaign next year.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses led a Columbus fund-raiser earlier this year, and it boasted of raising the first $2,000. It also has formed a political action committee, Free Enterprise Trust/Ohio, which plans on raising thousands more to help push business-friendly Supreme Court candidates through television and other advertising in the November 2000 elections.

Here in Illinois, the landmark decision that struck down unconstitutional tort reform legislation, Best v. Taylor Machine Works, et al., 179 Ill.2d 367, 689 N.E. 1057 (1997), also set off business groups and their lobbyists to redouble their efforts in their right to enact measures favorable to their selfish interests by robbing personal injury victims of long-established rights.

For instance, the Illinois Civil Justice League, a group created to protect business interests in the state’s legal system, immediately attacked the high court’s well-penned ruling. Influencing judicial elections through intimidations should not be tolerated.

As a trial attorney, I hold the deepest respect and trust for the jury system. It is a right guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. It is embedded in the American democratic ethos.

It is a system for which our forefathers so desperately fought and on which this country was built. If a plaintiff has requested a jury trial, the civil justice system owes it to that party, and to the citizenry, to be judged by one’s peers.

It is the jury that has the authority to enforce social norms through its verdict and declare that negligent conduct won’t be tolerated. It does it the only way the civil justice system will allow - through assigning a dollar value to the case. But, also, and more important, American citizens are entitled to responsibility or accountability as established through the civil justice system, rather than through the notion of frontier justice of an eye for an eye.

When this group of 12 peers who promise under oath to determine the case based upon the laws and the facts before them, they should be allowed to speak in an unrestrained way on behalf of the public. Trial by jury is said to symbolize the importance and respect of individual rights. A jury is a group of people who apply a measure of equity, fairness and impartiality to the proceedings. This is its political function in society.

But is also takes on an educational function when it sets the standard on certain issues confronting Americans - from intolerance of drunken drivers to the tobacco industry’s duplicitous marketing techniques, from unsafe rail travel procedures to negligent aircraft manufacturing. It is the jury that sets the standard, and it is the jury that motivates many defendants to correct social ills.

Next up is Pennsylvania’s "tort deform" law this fall. Let’s hope the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the courage to recognize the unfairness in its legislation and stands up for each person’s civil rights.