More Categories

Rule 42 – Consolidation; Separate Trials

May 14, 2021 | Civil Procedure, Ohio

(A) Consolidation.

(1) Generally. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:

(a) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;
(b) consolidate the actions; or
(c) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
(2) Asbestos, silicosis, or mixed dust disease actions. In tort actions involving an asbestos claim, a silicosis claim, or a mixed dust disease claim, the court may consolidate pending actions for case management purposes. For purposes of trial, the court may consolidate pending actions only with the consent of all parties. Absent the consent of all parties, the court may consolidate, for purposes of trial, only those pending actions relating to the same exposed person and members of the exposed person’s household.
(3) As used in division (A)(2) of this rule:

(a) “Asbestos claim” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.91;
(b) “Silicosis claim” and “mixed dust disease claim” have the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.84;
(c) In reference to an asbestos claim, “tort action” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.91;
(d) In reference to a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim, “tort action” has the same meaning as in R.C. 2307.84.
(B) Separate trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite or economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court shall preserve any right to a jury trial.

Ohio. Civ.R. 42

Effective:July 1, 1970; amended effective July 1, 2005;July 1, 2015.

Staff Notes (July 1, 2015 Amendments)

Stylistic Changes

The rule is amended to conform the provisions of Civ.R. 42(A)(1) and Civ.R. 42(B) to the 2007 stylistic changes to Federal Rule 42. The amendments are nonsubstantive. Rule 42(A)(2), not found in the federal rule, remains unchanged.

Rule 42(B) R.C. 2315.21(B)(1) Bifurcation

R.C. 2314.21(B)(1) requires a two-stage bifurcation of the trial upon the motion of any party in a tort action that is tried to a jury and in which a plaintiff makes a claim for compensatory damages and a claim for punitive or exemplary damages. In Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the statute creates a substantive right and, therefore, takes precedence over the discretion conferred by Civ.R. 42(B) to grant or deny bifurcation. In cases governed by R.C. 2315.21(B), upon the motion of any party the trial court must grant the two-stage bifurcation required by the statute.

Staff Note (July 1, 2005 Amendment)

Civ. R. 42 is amended in response to requests from the General Assembly contained in Section 3 of Am. Sub. H.B. 342 of the 125th General Assembly, effective September 1, 2004, and Section 4 of Am. Sub. H.B. 292 of the 125th General Assembly, effective September 2, 2004. These acts contain provisions governing tort claims that allege exposure and injury by persons exposed to asbestos, silica, or mixed dust. Each act includes a request that the Supreme Court amend the Rules of Civil Procedure “to specify procedures for venue and consolidation” of asbestosis, silicosis, and mixed dust disease claims.

Rule 42(A) Consolidation

Civ. R. 42(A)(2) provides that a trial court must have the consent of the parties before consolidating actions for trial that involve an asbestos claim, a silicosis claim, or a mixed dust disease claim. Absent the consent of the parties, the court may consolidate for trial only those claims that involve the same exposed person and members of the exposed person’s household. The rule expressly permits the consolidation of pending actions for case management purposes. Division (A)(3) incorporates the statutory definitions of “asbestos claim,” “silicosis claim,” “mixed dust disease claim,” and “tort action” for purposes of Civ. R. 42(A)(2).