 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curl v. Volkswagen of America12/2/2005
ing breach of an implied warranty that the blanket was reasonably fit for use as an article of bed clothing. The Ohio Supreme Court found that they had purchased the blanket from an independent dealer, and held that no action could be maintained based on the implied warranty because there must be contractual privity between the seller and buyer.
{ } A few years later, the court relaxed this rule in Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co. (1958), 167 Ohio St. 244. Rogers involved a purchaser of a hair product that caused her hair to fall out. She filed claims of breach of implied and express warrantiesagainst the manufacturer. The court recognized that the prevailing rule required privity between buyers and sellers for breach of warranty claims, but then noted the "growing number of cases which, as an exception to the general rule, hold that as to foodstuffs and medicines *, a warranty of fitness for human consumption carries over from the manufacturer * to the ultimate consumer, regardless of privity of contract." Id. at 246. The court then stated that " t would seem but logical to extend the rule * to cosmetics and other preparations * designed for application to the bodies of humans or animals. Id. at 247. In doing so, the court stated that " ccasions may arise when it is fitting * to discard legal concepts of the past to meet new conditions and practices of our changing and progressing civilization. * The consuming public ordinarily relies exclusively on the representations of the manufacturer in his advertisements. What sensible or sound reason then exists as to why, when the goods purchased by the ultimate consumer on the strength of the advertisements aimed squarely at him do not possess their described qualities and goodness and cause him harm, he should not be permitted to move against the manufacturer to recoup his loss." Id. at 248-249.
{ } As the years progressed, the Ohio Supreme Court continued to make exceptions to the privity requirement. In Inglis v. Am. Motors Corp. (1965), 3 Ohio St.2d 132, the buyer purchased a defective vehicle from a dealer that was manufactured by American Motors Corporation ("AMC"). The purchaser sued AMC, claiming breach of implied and express warranties. Recognizing that the purchaser and manufacturer were not in privity, the court evaluated the court's reasoning in Rogers, and held:
{ } " rivity of contract is not necessary in an action based on breach of warranty where one purchases an automobile in reasonable reliance upon representations made in advertising of the manufacturer of such automobile in mass communications media to the effect that its automobiles are trouble-free, economical in operation and built and manufactured with a high quality of workmanship and such purchaser suffers damage in the form of diminution of value of the automobile attributable to latent defects not ascertainable at the time of purchase." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{ } The Ohio Supreme Court has continued to shape, mold, and stretch the privity requirement for defective products. Where there is injury to person or property, the courts have allowed remedy without privity. See, e.g., Lonzrick, supra, (plaintiff injured by defective floor joists was allowed breach of implied warranty claim grounded in tort against manufacturer, even though plaintiff was not buyer of product); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Truck & Concrete Equip. Co. (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 244 (action for breach of implied warranty for property damage recognized, despite lack of privity). One case hinted at allowing an implied warranty claim for economic damage. See Goddard v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 41 (in construing the effectiveness of an ex
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|