 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
D'Agastino v. Uniroyal-Goodrich Tire Co.8/7/1998
HANDWORK, Presiding Judge.
This appeal is from the October 23, 1997 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, in which the court held that its prior order granting summary judgment to appellee, the Budd Company, and dismissing the claims filed against the company by appellants, Michael and Crystal D'Agastino, was a final order. On appeal, appellants assert the following assignments of error:
"I. The trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment because the evidence presented by appellants was sufficient to create a jury question on the claim of design defect.
"II. The trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment because the evidence presented by appellants was sufficient to create a jury question on the claim of failure to warn."
Appellant was injured while attempting to mount and properly seat a sixteen-inch tubeless tire onto a 16.5-inch wheel. The rim was manufactured by appellee. Claims against other companies named as defendants in the suit are not involved in this appeal. Of the initial causes of action made against appellee only one remained at the time appellee sought summary judgment. This cause of action was for product liability with two claims: that the rim was defectively designed and that appellee failed to warn appellants of the risks and hazards of using the rim.
Appellee moved for summary judgment, asserting that appellants could not prove the prima facie elements of their cause of action. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to appellee. On appeal, appellants challenge that ruling on the ground that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded the granting of summary judgment.
To determine whether summary judgment was appropriately granted, a reviewing court must apply Civ.R. 56. Fyffe v. Jeno's Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 120, 570 N.E.2d 1108, 1113-1114. Summary judgment is an appropriate shortcut to litigation whenever there is no genuine issue of material fact and, when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can only conclude that the issues presented must be resolved adversely to the nonmoving party and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C).
R.C. 2307.75(A) provides generally that a product is defective in design if "at the time it left the control of its manufacturer, the foreseeable risks associated with its design or formulation exceeded the benefits associated with that design or formulation."
An exception is made to the general rule where if "at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer, a practical and technically feasible alternative design or formulation was not available that would have prevented the harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages without substantially impairing the usefulness or intended purpose of the product, unless the manufacturer acted unreasonably in introducing the product into trade or commerce." R.C. 2307.75(F).
Determination whether there were foreseeable risks associated with the design of a product must be in part based upon consideration of the following factors:
"(1) The nature and magnitude of the risks of harm associated with that design or formulation in light of the intended and reasonably foreseeable uses, modifications, or alterations of the product;
"(2) The likely awareness of product users, whether based on warnings, general knowledge, or otherwise, of those risks of harm;
"(3) The likelihood that that design or formulation would cause harm in l
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|