 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wynn v. Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing12/4/2003
.Appellant, Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing, is the manufacturer and designer of the C4-25 Huskey industrial tow-motor. On August 25, 1998, Jeffrey Wynn sustained personal injuries while test driving a C4-25 Huskey in the course of his employment at Honda of America Manufacturing ("Honda"). Appellee, Hy-Tek Material Handling, Inc., the local distributor of the C4-25 Huskey, serviced the unit at Honda shortly before Mr. Wynn's accident. On September 17, 1999, Mr. Wynn filed a product liability/negligence action against appellant to which his wife, Robin Wynn, appended a claim for loss of consortium. On February 1, 2001, appellant filed a third-party complaint against appellee, seeking both indemnification and contribution.
.The matter was submitted to a jury on the Wynns' claims against appellant and appellant's third-party claims against appellee. While the jury was deliberating, the Wynns agreed to accept the sum of $350,000, regardless of the outcome of the jury's deliberations, in exchange for a full release of any and all claims they had or may have had against both appellant and appellee. Jury deliberations continued without the jury being advised of the settlement.
.The jury ultimately awarded Mr. Wynn $823,610 in compensatory damages and $0 damages on Mrs. Wynn's loss of consortium claim. The jury also found in favor of appellant on its third-party claim against appellee. In answers to interrogatories submitted by appellant, the jury found, inter alia, that the C4-25 Huskey was defective at the time it left appellant's control, that appellee was negligent, and that both the product defect and appellee's negligence proximately caused Mr. Wynn's injuries. The jury apportioned fault between appellant and appellee at 65 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
.On September 26, 2002, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Wynn and against appellant in the amount of the jury verdict. Because appellant and appellee disagreed as to whether appellant was entitled to a judgment against appellee on its third-party claim, and, if so, the amount of such judgment, the trial court ordered the parties to brief the issue.
.On October 1, 2002, appellant paid the Wynns $350,000. On the same day, the Wynns executed a settlement agreement memorializing their acceptance of the $350,000 as full satisfaction of the judgment rendered on September 26, 2002, in exchange for a full release of any and all claims they had or may have had against both appellant and appellee. A satisfaction of the judgment entered against appellant was filed October 4, 2002.
.In its post-trial brief, appellant argued that the trial court should enter judgment in its favor on its contribution claim in the amount of $288,263.50, which represents 35 percent of the $823,610 verdict. Appellant argued that such judgment was mandated by R.C. 2307.32(E), which provides that the jury's answers to interrogatories as to the apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors are binding in determining the right of contribution. Appellant maintained that because the jury found appellee to be 35 percent liable for Mr. Wynn's injuries, appellant was entitled to receive 35 percent of the jury verdict from appellee.
.In opposition, appellee argued that appellant was not entitled to contribution from appellee because appellant had not paid more than its proportionate share of the common liability. In support of its position, appellee cited R.C. 2307.31(A) and (F), which provide, in pertinent part:
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section or section 2307.32 of the Revised Code, if two or more persons are jointly and severally liable in tort for the same in
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|