 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dobbelaere v. Cosco12/31/1997
iscovery requests to TSC at the time she filed her original complaint. At that time, it was reasonable for the supplier of the brush cutter to believe that the manufacturer of the brush cutter was the same entity whose name appeared on the shaft of the product. After more extensive discovery took place, primarily by the various defendants, third-party defendants, and cross-claimants, the identity of the manufacturer was narrowed down to two manufacturers.
The record demonstrates that either Cosco or Aircap manufactured the brush cutter under the K&S;product-line name. The affidavit of Robert Craig established the first possible date of manufacture of the brush cutter that injured Dobbelaere at a date well after K&S; when it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kidde, could have manufactured the brush cutter. It was reasonable for this evidence to first appear well into the discovery process, and not at the time the answer to the complaint was due. Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists demonstrating that TSC could be liable to Dobbelaere under the theory of supplier liability as set forth in R.C. 2307 78(13).
Based on the foregoing, we find that construing the evidence most strongly in favor of Dobbelaere no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, that conclusion being that the Cosco defendants, the MTD defendants, and TSC are entitled to judgment in their favor as to all claims asserted by Dobbelaere as a matter of law. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Paulding County Common Pleas Court.
Judgment affirmed.
EVANS, P.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|