concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the reasoning and the result in this case. However, I cannot in good conscience concur in the portion of the opinion which cites Wilfong v. Batdorf (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 100. R.C. 1.48 provides, “A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective.” There is no doubt in my mind that Ohio’s comparative negligence statute should have been applied prospectively.