Comparative Fault in Ohio in Cincinnati, OH How Shared Blame Cuts a Recovery

The line the statute draws

Revised Code 2315.33 says contributory fault does not bar a plaintiff from recovering damages that directly and proximately resulted from the tortious conduct of one or more other persons, so long as the plaintiff's contributory fault "was not greater than the combined tortious conduct" of all other persons from whom recovery is sought in the action and all other persons from whom recovery is not sought. The court must then diminish compensatory damages by an amount proportionately equal to the plaintiff's percentage of tortious conduct, determined under section 2315.34.

Two consequences follow, and neither is intuitive. An even split still recovers, because an equal share is not a greater share. One percentage point past even recovers nothing at all. And the comparison is not injured person against defendant; it is injured person against the combined conduct of everyone, including people who were never sued.

Percentages belong to the trier of fact, in writing

Section 2315.34 requires the court in a nonjury action to make findings of fact, and the jury in a jury action to return a general verdict with answers to interrogatories, specifying the total compensatory damages that would have been recoverable but for the plaintiff's own conduct, the economic portion of that total, the noneconomic portion, and the percentage of tortious conduct attributable to all persons under section 2307.23.

Section 2307.23 fills in how those percentages are built. The interrogatories must state the share attributable to the plaintiff and to each party from whom recovery is sought, and separately the share attributable to each person from whom recovery is not sought. Division (B) requires the sum of all those percentages to equal one hundred per cent. Division (C) makes the empty-chair argument an affirmative defense: any defendant may assert that a specific percentage belongs to someone who was not sued, and may raise that defense at any time before trial.

What a percentage does to the money

Fault percentages do more than shrink a number. Section 2307.22(A)(1) provides that when the trier of fact finds more than fifty per cent of the tortious conduct attributable to one defendant, that defendant is jointly and severally liable for all compensatory damages representing economic loss. Under division (A)(2), a defendant to whom fifty per cent or less is attributed is liable only for a proportionate share of economic loss, calculated by multiplying total economic damages by that defendant's percentage.

Where the money can be collected therefore depends on where the percentages land. Two defendants at forty and sixty carry very different exposure for the same medical bills, and a solvent defendant assigned a minority share cannot be made to cover an absent one.

Claims the defense cannot reach

Section 2315.32(B) permits contributory fault to be asserted as an affirmative defense to a tort claim, "except that the contributory fault of the plaintiff may not be asserted as an affirmative defense to an intentional tort claim." Division (A) removes sections 2315.32 to 2315.36 from actions described in section 4113.03 entirely. So the framework is broad but not universal, and characterizing the claim comes before arguing about shares.

Where the argument actually gets made in Cincinnati

Because the percentages are found by the trier of fact, the fault fight is usually settled in the shadow of a jury rather than in front of one. In the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Local Rule 9, effective October 1, 2025, sets a security deposit of $325.00 for a civil action and $270.00 for a jury demand, with third-party complaints, counterclaims, cross-claims and intervening complaints at $75.00 each. That last line matters here: adding a party to move a percentage is a docketed, priced step, not a rhetorical one.

Percentage arguments also travel with the incident type. The Ohio State Highway Patrol's Hamilton County fatal crash summary, dated March 30, 2026, counts 53 fatal crashes in 2025 and 60 in 2024, with 35 of the 2025 crashes recorded as OVI related. Impairment, speed and right-of-way findings in a crash file are the raw material an adjuster later converts into a proposed split.

Records that decide a split before anyone argues one

What fixes a percentage is usually mundane and perishable: signal timing, lighting, a surveillance clip, a maintenance log, a witness who saw where a person was standing. Photographs taken from a distance establish approach and sight lines; close-ups establish the defect. Statements given early, before the sequence is clear, tend to become the anchor for the other side's number.

Ohio's framework also rewards naming everyone whose conduct is in the picture. Since a nonparty's share is a listed affirmative defense that can appear at any time before trial, the person who never appeared in the demand letter can still absorb a slice of the hundred per cent.

This page describes general features of Ohio law and is not legal advice about any particular incident. An attorney licensed in Ohio should review the specific facts, records and dates before conclusions are drawn.