Worked example: Damages Allocation in Ohio

Example inputs

Below is a worked example of damages allocation in Ohio using DocketMath with jurisdiction-aware rules. This example is designed to show how you’d model timing constraints and allocate amounts across claim components—not to provide legal advice.

Here is a simple illustration for Ohio. These values are for demonstration only and should be replaced with your actual inputs.

• Principal or amount: $100,000
• Rate or cap: 10%
• Start date: 2025-01-15
• End/as-of date: 2025-09-30

Scenario (fictional numbers)

Assume a plaintiff sues in Ohio after an injury involving a mix of compensatory elements. You want to allocate a total damages estimate across two buckets:

• Economic damages (e.g., medical bills, lost wages)
• Non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering)

Assume the case timeline includes:

• Event (accrual) date: 2023-03-15
• Filing (claim submission) date: 2023-10-30
• Estimated damages total: $150,000
• Initial allocation guess:

  • Economic: 70%
  • Non-economic: 30%

Ohio timing rule used in DocketMath (default)

DocketMath applies Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.13 to set the general/default SOL window. For this worked example, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so DocketMath uses the general/default period from the jurisdiction dataset.

• General SOL period used in this example: 0.5 years
• Source (Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.13): https://codes.ohio.gov/assets/laws/revised-code/authenticated/29/2901/2901.13/7-16-2015/2901.13-7-16-2015.pdf

Calculator inputs you would enter

Open DocketMath at /tools/damages-allocation and enter:

• Jurisdiction: US-OH
• General SOL period: 0.5 years (default)
• Accrual date: 2023-03-15
• Filing date: 2023-10-30
• Total estimated damages: $150,000
• Allocation method: Percentage-based (for this example)
• Initial split:

  • Economic: 70%
  • Non-economic: 30%

Example run

Run the calculation in DocketMath at /tools/damages-allocation (so you can reproduce the workflow).

Run the Damages Allocation calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step 1: Check whether the default SOL window is satisfied

DocketMath first compares dates under the default SOL rule:

• SOL length used: 0.5 years
• Accrual date: 2023-03-15
• Filing date: 2023-10-30

A half-year window from 2023-03-15 lands around mid-September 2023 (the exact comparison can vary slightly based on day-count conventions in the tool). Since 2023-10-30 is later than roughly ~2023-09-15, the example is treated as outside the default SOL window.

Step 2: Translate timing into allocation consequences

Because the default SOL window appears not to be satisfied, DocketMath’s jurisdiction-aware allocation logic reduces what is treated as recoverable.

In practical terms, the modeled output changes from “recoverable damages equal the full estimate” to “recoverable damages reduced by the SOL gating outcome.”

For this worked example, the run produces outputs of the following pattern:

• Recoverable total damages: $0
• Non-recoverable damages: $150,000

If your DocketMath configuration supports partial credit for certain facts, the numbers may differ—but the key modeling idea is that the default SOL gating drives the recoverable amount.

Step 3: Apply the allocation percentages to the recoverable total

Once DocketMath determines the recoverable total, it applies your selected economic/non-economic percentages.

Recoverable total: $0

• Economic (70% of $0): $0
• Non-economic (30% of $0): $0

Output summary table

Statutory anchor used by DocketMath

This jurisdiction rule is anchored to:

• Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.13 (general SOL framework)
  Source: https://codes.ohio.gov/assets/laws/revised-code/authenticated/29/2901/2901.13/7-16-2015/2901.13-7-16-2015.pdf

Because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this example, DocketMath applies the dataset’s general/default period of 0.5 years as the governing rule.

Sensitivity check

Now change one input at a time to see how the output changes. This is the practical value of DocketMath: you can test outcomes under different timing scenarios and allocation assumptions without rebuilding your entire model.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Sensitivity 1: Move the filing date earlier

Keep everything the same except:

• Filing date: 2023-09-10 (instead of 2023-10-30)

Since the filing occurs closer to (and potentially within) the default 0.5-year window from 2023-03-15, the model typically treats damages as recoverable rather than barred.

Expected result pattern (when treated as recoverable):

• Recoverable total damages: $150,000
• Economic: 70% → $105,000
• Non-economic: 30% → $45,000

Sensitivity 2: Keep the filing date the same, change allocation split

Return to the original filing date (2023-10-30, outside the default SOL window). Now change:

• Economic: 50%
• Non-economic: 50%

Because the gating outcome remains “outside SOL,” the recoverable total stays $0 in this worked example. The split still allocates $0 across components.

Expected result pattern:

• Economic: 50% of $0 → $0
• Non-economic: 50% of $0 → $0

Sensitivity 3: Accrual date shift (event date earlier)

Change accrual:

• Accrual date: 2023-02-01 (instead of 2023-03-15)
• Filing date: 2023-10-30 (unchanged)

This increases the elapsed time between accrual and filing, so an already-late filing typically remains barred (or becomes even more clearly barred under the same default window).

Expected result pattern:

• Recoverable remains $0 (or stays barred)

What this sensitivity tells you (practical takeaway)

• Under DocketMath’s default SOL gating, timing inputs (accrual + filing) dominate the recoverability outcome.
• Allocation percentages matter most only after the model determines that some or all damages are recoverable under the SOL rule.

Related reading

• Damages Allocation Guide for Alabama — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for Alaska — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for American Samoa — Comparative Fault Rules