To amend sections 2305.111 and 2315.18 of the Revised Code regarding childhood sexual abuse and student sexual abuse and to amend the version of section 2305.111 that is scheduled to take effect on October 12, 2028, to continue the change on and after that date.
HB659 would expand and clarify Ohio civil law remedies for survivors of sexual abuse by amending the statute of limitations and damages rules in sections 2305.111 and 2315.18 of the Revised Code. The bill defines “childhood sexual abuse” and adds a separate category of “student sexual abuse,” covering abuse of students ages 18 through 23 in higher education and certain career/technical institutions. It allows civil actions for childhood sexual abuse to be brought within 37 years after accrual, and actions for student sexual abuse to be brought until the victim reaches age 55, with additional extensions for DNA matches and tolling for fraudulent concealment. It also preserves a later-effective version of the same changes scheduled for October 12, 2028, by amending that future version so the reforms continue after that date.
The bill also changes Ohio’s tort damages law by removing the cap on noneconomic damages for claims involving childhood sexual abuse, student sexual abuse, or violations of the specified sex-offense statutes. In those cases, plaintiffs could recover unlimited compensation for pain and suffering and other intangible harms, while the bill leaves existing caps in place for most other tort actions. The measure further specifies that courts need not require a criminal conviction or guilty plea before awarding damages or recognizing the abuse for civil purposes. It also makes conforming changes to how damages are determined and entered in court, while preserving the general one-year rule for ordinary assault and battery claims outside the abuse categories.
Overall, the bill’s impact would be to significantly broaden civil access for survivors and increase potential liability for individual perpetrators, institutions, schools, higher education providers, medical and mental health professionals, detention facilities, and churches or congregations where abuse occurred. It would also affect insurers, employers, and other entities that may be sued for negligently facilitating abuse. By extending filing windows and removing noneconomic-damages limits in these cases, the bill would likely increase the number and value of civil claims that can be pursued in Ohio.
Because the bill was only introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, there is no recorded vote history or committee transcript showing formal support or opposition. Based on the bill’s subject matter and structure, the measure appears aimed at strengthening survivor remedies and closing procedural barriers to civil accountability. The absence of recorded debate means there is no documented committee sentiment in the provided materials, but the bill’s sponsors and cosponsors suggest affirmative interest in expanding protections for abuse survivors.
The main points of contention likely center on the expanded statute of limitations, the retroactive or long-tail exposure for institutions, and the elimination of noneconomic-damages caps in abuse cases. Potential opponents may argue that the bill increases litigation risk, creates uncertainty for defendants, and could expose schools, churches, healthcare providers, and other organizations to older claims. Supporters would likely emphasize survivor access to justice, the difficulty of reporting abuse promptly, and the need to align civil remedies with the realities of delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases.
HB659 would amend Ohio’s civil limitations and damages statutes to create longer filing windows for childhood sexual abuse and a new student sexual abuse cause of action, while also removing the cap on noneconomic damages for those claims. It would affect Revised Code sections 2305.111 and 2315.18, and it would also revise the future version of section 2305.111 scheduled to take effect in 2028 so the changes continue beyond that date. The bill would expand exposure for perpetrators and entities that negligently facilitated abuse, including schools, higher education institutions, medical and mental health providers, detention facilities, and religious organizations.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded formal sentiment from committee action. The bill’s introduction and sponsorship pattern indicate a pro-survivor, accountability-focused intent, with the measure designed to make civil claims easier to bring and to increase available damages in abuse cases. At the same time, the bill’s broad liability and long limitations periods suggest it could draw resistance from institutions and defendants concerned about litigation exposure.
The likely points of contention are the extended limitations periods, the special treatment of student sexual abuse claims, and the removal of noneconomic-damages caps for abuse-related tort actions. Supporters would likely argue that survivors often need many years to disclose abuse and that civil law should reflect that reality. Opponents may focus on fairness to defendants, the burden of defending older claims, and the financial impact on institutions that may be sued for negligent facilitation rather than direct abuse.