 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beavercreek Local School v. Basic3/6/1991
n it failed to state the grounds of its objection to the trial court. The colloquy ensuing between Basic and the trial court was as follows:
"THE COURT: Gentlemen of Counsel, would you like to step up? All right. Let the record indicate that prior to the Court's closing comment, Counsel was invited to the Bench to make any suggestion to the Court which they wished concerning the charge. Mr. Patterson, for the Defense, indicated that he had some observations, some exceptions to take to the Court's charge, and it was agreed at the time we would continue and that these exceptions would be retroactively inserted at the appropriate time at that point in time in the record, so to reflect that the exceptions were timely brought.
"MR. PATTERSON: As we discussed yesterday, I do object to the consumer expectation charge, and obviously it was given by the Court."
Civ.R. 51(A) requires a party to state specifically the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection in order to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct its error.
The specific reason for the objection to the consumer expectation test is not stated in the transcript; however, the transcript does refer to an off-the-record discussion between the parties and the trial court regarding the jury charge. From the record, it appears the trial court was fully aware of Basic'sobjection to the charge given and had adequate opportunity to reconsider the charge. Therefore, we will consider Basic's second assignment of error.
Basic contends that the trial court's charge to the jury instructing the jury to apply both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test was error under Ohio law because the tests are alternative choices and this case involves a non-consumer product.
The test for determining whether a product design is defective is characterized as a two-pronged test as follows:
"A product design is in a defective condition if it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner or if the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk inherent in such design." Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 460, 23 O.O.3d 403, 432 N.E.2d 814, syllabus, Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 456, 21 O.O.3d 285, 424 N.E.2d 568, approved and followed; Cremeans v. Internatl. Harvester (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 232, 6 OBR 302, 452 N.E.2d 1281. The test contemplates application of both the consumer expectation analysis and the risk-utility analysis in determining whether the product design is in a defective condition to the user or consumer. The two-pronged analysis of the test does not mean that the consumer expectation and risk-utility analyses are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, if the jury concludes that one standard is not met, the jury may consider the other standard. We conclude that it was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury regarding both prongs of the test for determining whether a product design is defective. Basic's second assignment of error is overruled.
Basic's first assignment of error having been sustained, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and, pursuant to App.R. 12(B), judgment is entered in favor of Basic and against Beavercreek.
Judgment reversed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|