A three-justice majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court has deemed constitutional a business-friendly law that limits just how much bad corporate actors and civil wrongdoers must pay for the damages they cause.

But the landmark opinion – authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins and joined by fellow Republican appointees Justices Holly Kirby and Roger Page – drew heated opposition from the high court’s remaining two members.

“The majority’s decision that (the damages cap law) is constitutional tells the citizens of Tennessee that their right to trial by jury and their right to be fairly compensated for noneconomic damages are trumped by the desire to limit the financial exposure of big corporations and insurance companies in civil negligence lawsuits,” Justice Sharon Lee wrote in her dissent.

“I will not join in sending this message,” she wrote. “I dissent.”

So, too, did Justice Cornelia Clark, opining that the Tennessee Constitution made the right to a trial by jury sacrosanct – especially free from the influence of the Legislature. Both dissenting justices are Democratic appointees.

“(The state Constitution) divests the General Assembly of all authority to modify the common law right of trial by jury,” Clark wrote.

The high court’s decision upholds a section of the Tennessee Civil Justice Act that caps damages for woes not easily quantified - mental and physical suffering, lost work opportunities, loss of the enjoyment of life – to $750,000 in most cases no matter what a jury rules.

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year struck down another section of that law – this one capping damages designed to punish the corporate bad actor or civil wrongdoer – as a violation of both the state and federal constitutions.

With those two courts at odds and two of five Tennessee justices dissenting, it’s not yet clear if this battle over a law pushed across the U.S. by the business and medical industry lobbies is now over here, or if it's headed to the nation’s highest court.

Pro-business law

The damages cap law at issue in the state Supreme Court’s ruling was part of a package of legislation passed by the state legislature in 2011 to create a pro-business climate in Tennessee by protecting businesses from hefty damages awards in cases of civil wrongdoing.

The damages sections of the law require judges to whittle down monetary awards by juries if they exceed the cap imposed by the Legislature.

Lobbies for corporations, doctors and hospitals were pushing similar measures across the country. In state after state since then, those laws have come under legal attack as usurping a citizen’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Some state courts have backed the measures as constitutionally sound. Some haven’t.

In its first ruling on the issue, the state high court’s three-justice majority opined that the Tennessee Legislature has the legal authority to curb jury awards.

“The right to a jury trial mandates that all contested factual issues be decided by an unbiased and impartial jury,” Bivins wrote. “However, the right to a jury trial under the Tennessee Constitution does not entitle a plaintiff to any particular cause of action or any particular remedy.

“Instead, what causes of action a plaintiff may bring, or what remedies a plaintiff may seek, are matters of law subject to determination by the legislature,” he concluded.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III lauded the opinion. His office helped the Legislature craft the law and has been defending its constitutionality.

“We are obviously pleased. A lot of hard work went into drafting and passing this statute that has been so helpful in giving businesses some certainty and yet another reason to bring jobs to Tennessee,” he said in a statement.

“Successful plaintiffs still get (all) of their economic damages like lost wages and medical expenses,” he wrote. “The caps address the subjectivity, risk, uncertainty and inconsistency associated with awards of noneconomic damages like pain and suffering.”

But Justices Clark and Lee aren’t applauding the majority. They say the decision – and the law it addresses – is wrong.

Justice Lee: Bad law, bad ruling

“Every version of the Tennessee Constitution dating back to the attainment of statehood in 1796 has declared ‘… the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,’” Justice Clark wrote. “The contours of this right thus ‘have remained unchanged’ for the past 223 years.

“This constitutionally guaranteed fact-finding function encompasses the jury’s determination of the type and amount of damages,” she wrote.

Lee said the damages cap renders “meaningless” a jury’s verdict and robs victims of civil wrongdoing of justice as determined by a jury.

In a rare move, Lee figuratively cast her robe aside briefly in her dissent to air her personal view of the damages cap.

“Statements made during the debate on noneconomic damages caps in the Tennessee House of Representatives make it clear that the sole purpose of the caps was to provide businesses with financial certainty in litigation,” she wrote.

“In every year since 2000, the average combined amount of economic and noneconomic damages awarded in tort cases has been far below the amount of the statutory cap for noneconomic damages,” she continued.

“Thus, in Tennessee, we do not have a problem with ‘runaway juries,’” she wrote. “Legal analysis aside, we should not ignore the real-life consequences of the damages cap statute.”

She described the case of Billy Meals, a 6-year-old boy whose spine was fractured in a case of civil wrongdoing in 2002.

“Billy became a paraplegic,” she wrote. “Had Billy’s injuries occurred after … the damages cap statute went into effect, he would have received only $1 million (total). … Consider whether $1 million, or realistically a net recovery of less than two-thirds after payment of lawyer fees and litigation expenses would have been adequate and fair compensation.

“Not at all,” she continued. "We are just beginning to see the unfortunate effects the damages cap statute is having on persons injured after (it went into effect). Courts are being forced to disregard the damages that juries - after considering the evidence presented at trial and being duly instructed on the law - have awarded to injured parties.”

Kirby, though, shot back at Lee with a concurring opinion filed in response to Lee’s dissent. She said the state’s high court must only consider whether a law is constitutional – no matter how distasteful it may be.

“Admittedly, this can sometimes be a hard principle to maintain,” Kirby wrote. “But maintain it we must.”