 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Catalfamo v. Lehman Awning Co.6/7/1999
second additional interrogatory to the jury asked "... do you find that Lehman Awning sold to the plaintiff employer the particular strap that injured the plaintiff?" To this, the jury answered "no". Appellant argues these two interrogatories are inconsistent with each other and with the general verdict in favor of appellee. Pursuant to Civ. R. 49, the court may enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the jury interrogatory answers are inconsistent with the verdict. Appellant argues because the jury found the strap that injured appellee was not supplied by appellant, the jury's Conclusion that appellant designed the method of securing that strap to the frame is illogical and incorrect. Instead, appellant argues the only Conclusion to be drawn was that Hughes Trucking provided the strap that injured appellee. Appellee responds the jury's answers to the interrogatories are not in conflict with the general verdict. In Welch Sand & Gravel , Inc., v. O & K Trojan, Inc. (1995), 107 Ohio App. 3d 218, the court found a manufacturer can be held liable if the design is altered by modifications that are reasonably foreseeable. Here, appellant's employee fabricated the tarp, and put twenty four grommets on the tarp. After appellant's employee discovered Hughes Trucking was not willing to wait for him to complete the installation of the tarp and securement system, he nevertheless provided some straps to attach to some of the grommets. The evidence showed someone must have added more elastic straps to the tarp in the same fashion in which appellant did, to the empty grommets which appellant had installed. The jury found this was not a material alteration of the design. Appellant did not test the jury's verdict by means of an interrogatory designed to determine whether it found this particular strap was more likely to cause harm than the ones appellant had furnished, although there was some testimony presented to that effect. We find the jury's answers to the interrogatories are not internally inconsistent, nor are they inconsistent with the general verdict in favor of plaintiff. The third assignment of error is overruled.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Reader, V. J., concur
|