for nonconclusory analysis. {¶ 214} The majority opinion explains that because the jury determines the fact of punitive damages, the subsequent statutorily required diminution of that damages amount does not intrude on the jury’s findings. The majority opinion states that the automatic arbitrary diminution of a damages award does not affect the jury’s factual determination. “The more one tries to explain this extraordinary result the less another can understand it.” Marshall v. Gibson (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 10, 14, 19 OBR 8, 482 N.E.2d 583 (Wright, J., dissenting). I would hold that R.C. 2315.21 violates the right to trial by jury because it “impairs the traditional function of the jury in determining the appropriate amount of damages.” Zoppo, 71 Ohio St.3d at 557, 644 N.E.2d 397 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 215} Citing Cooper Industries, Inc. v.
holding if a servants negligence is wanton and willful or malicious the master is liable for exemplary or punitive damages holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that the seventh amendment does require that the jury also be allowed to determine the amount of any punitive damages awarded holding unconstitutional a prior version of rc 231521 which provided that the court not the jury would determine the amount of punitive or exemplary damages