Ohio Premises Liability Funding
Pre-settlement funding for Ohio premises liability claims. The open-and-obvious doctrine, negligent security foreseeability, and damages caps explained.
Non-recourse funding is repaid only from a settlement or award. Independent capital providers set the terms.
Bills do not wait for your case.
Rent, medical bills and living costs keep arriving while a case moves through the court. An advance against a pending case can cover them and is repaid only if the case produces a recovery.
The Ohio rules that shape this claim
The rules below shape how a Ohio premises liability funding claim is underwritten and how quickly it can move toward resolution.
Two years from the date of injury for a negligence/premises-liability claim (Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10).
Ohio applies modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar (Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33) and retains the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories. Ohio's open-and-obvious doctrine can operate as a complete, dispositive bar for a visible hazard — Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, held that a landowner owes no duty to warn of a danger that is open and obvious, which can end a claim on summary judgment rather than merely reducing it through comparative fault. That doctrine interacts less directly with a negligent-security or structural-failure claim, however, since the underlying danger — an unscreened parking lot, an unrepaired stairwell railing, a malfunctioning elevator door sensor — is often not "obvious" in the way a wet floor or a pothole is, and courts instead apply the ordinary foreseeability standard for third-party criminal conduct: Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St. 3d 130, 652 N.E.2d 702 (1995), held that Ohio courts assess foreseeability under a totality-of-the-circumstances test — considering the nature, condition, and location of the property along with any other relevant factors — rather than requiring proof of an identical prior crime.
Non-economic damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, up to a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff (or $500,000 per occurrence for catastrophic injuries), under Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18, upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St. 3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948 (2007).
Ordinary pre-judgment interest on tort damages is limited, but Ohio allows it specifically where a party failed to make a good-faith effort to settle, under Ohio Rev. Code § 1343.03(C).
Proper in the county where the defendant resides or where the claim arose (Ohio Civ. R. 3).
Ohio regulates consumer litigation funding under the Non-recourse civil litigation advance contracts (current); replaced by a new consumer/commercial framework effective October 6, 2026 (H.B. 105), Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.55 (current, through 10/5/2026); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1357.01–1357.10 (effective 10/6/2026). Current law imposes no fixed rate cap — only an APR-style disclosure recalculated every 6 months.
How Ohio regulates consumer legal funding
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice. This entry is flagged for independent confirmation against the primary source.
How terms are set for Ohio plaintiffs
Rates and terms are set by the capital provider and written in the provider’s agreement before signing.
Because a negligent-security claim in Ohio requires developing the totality-of-the-circumstances foreseeability record rather than relying on a single obvious hazard, and often involves a property owner, a management company, and a security contractor as separate potential defendants, these claims generally take longer to resolve than a standard open-and-obvious dispute.
Why doesn't Ohio's open-and-obvious doctrine work the same way in a negligent security claim?
The open-and-obvious rule is built for visible physical hazards — a defendant needs to show the danger itself was apparent. A negligent-security claim instead turns on whether the risk of a criminal act was foreseeable, which is rarely something a plaintiff could have simply seen and avoided.
That distinction matters for underwriting: a claim genuinely governed by the open-and-obvious rule can end on summary judgment regardless of injury severity, while a negligent-security claim proceeds under the more fact-intensive foreseeability inquiry from Simpson v. Big Bear Stores, which is not resolved by whether a danger was "visible."
What does Ohio's totality-of-the-circumstances test require to show foreseeability?
Simpson v. Big Bear Stores allows Ohio courts to consider the nature, condition, and location of the property together with any other relevant factors — not just an identical prior crime — when deciding whether a criminal act against a customer or tenant was foreseeable.
This gives Ohio claims somewhat more flexibility than a jurisdiction requiring strictly identical prior incidents, but it also means the evidentiary record — layout, lighting, prior complaints, any security assessments the property commissioned — needs to be developed broadly rather than around a single benchmark event.
How do Ohio's damages caps interact with a severe negligent-security injury?
Ohio caps non-economic damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, up to $350,000 (or $500,000 for catastrophic injury), which limits the pain-and-suffering component of a verdict regardless of how severe the underlying assault or fall was.
Economic damages — medical costs, lost income, future care — are not capped, so a case with substantial documented economic loss from a catastrophic injury is affected differently by the cap than one where non-economic harm predominates.
Premises Liability Funding questions in Ohio
Ohio gives an injured person two years from the date of injury to file suit under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10. Claims against a political subdivision involve additional procedural requirements under Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act that should be addressed promptly.
Not in the same way. The open-and-obvious doctrine addresses visible physical hazards, while a negligent-security claim turns on whether a criminal act was foreseeable — a separate, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry under Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co. that is not resolved simply by whether the risk of crime was "visible."
Non-economic damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, up to $350,000 (or $500,000 per occurrence for catastrophic injuries), under Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18, upheld in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson (2007). Economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages are not capped.
Currently, yes — Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.55 regulates consumer litigation funding companies, including registration and disclosure requirements. That statute is scheduled to be repealed effective October 6, 2026 under H.B. 105, so its status should be reconfirmed before relying on it after that date.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 · Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33 · Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573 · Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St. 3d 130, 652 N.E.2d 702 (1995) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 · Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St. 3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948 (2007) · Ohio Rev. Code § 1343.03(C) · Ohio Civ. R. 3 · Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.55 · H.B. 105 (136th General Assembly)
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
Request funding for your case.
Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.