Law Commons^™

Products Liability - Strict Liability In Tort - Measure Of Proof: Defectiveness Of Product - Unreasonably Dangerous Test Abandoned: Cronin V. J.B.E. Olson Corp., Stanley M. Schultz

Akron Law Review

Thus the issue facing the court was whether California's concept of strict liability necessarily requires a showing that the defective, injury causing product was also unreasonably dangerous." They held that it does not. In arriving at this decision the court relied heavily on the language used in its landmark decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.

Manufacturer And Professional User's Liability For Defective Medical Equipment, Rosemary Rubin

Akron Law Review

One particular area of product liability, however, has been slow to accept strict liability. In the field of medical devices and equipment the courts seem reluctant to find liability without a clear showing of negligence, whether the defendant is the doctor, the hospital, or the manufacturer of the product. In this paper the focus will be on the emerging law in this area regarding medical equipment made only for use by experts, including nurses, doctors, dentists, anesthesiologists, emergency personnel and hospitals. The discussion will exclude blood and drug cases for these lead to conclusions of their own. The concentration will …

Strict Liability Comes Of Age In Ohio: Almost, Stephen J. Werber

Akron Law Review

In June 1977 the Ohio Supreme Court decided Temple v. Wean United, Inc., and adopted the doctrine of strict liability for product liability litigation, thereby following a national trend. Earlier decisions had discussed a theory similar to strict liability and had engendered considerable confusion as to the substantive theory supporting possible recovery. Temple apparently ended the confusion.

Liability For Product Design In Ohio - A First Step Toward Solution, Edgar A. Strause, James H. Hedden

Akron Law Review

This article concerns an area of the law of strict liability in tort which is now emerging from an embryonic stage in Ohio - namely, a manufacturer's liability for conscious design choices in developing its product. It is the thesis of this article that in the recent case of Temple v. Wean United, Inc., the Ohio Supreme Court has taken a major step toward a solution to the inherent difficulties in passing judgment upon the reasonableness of a manufacturer's conscious design choices. In doing so, the court has simultaneously lessened the otherwise open-ended exposure of manufacturers to liability concerning …

Strict Liability And Economic Harm In Ohio, Edward J. Howlett Ii

Akron Law Review

In Temple v. Wean United, Inc., the Ohio Supreme Court formally adopted section 402 (A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, thus recognizing in Ohio the Restatement's strict liability cause of action for injury caused by defectively manufactured products. Although the Restatement clearly states that recovery may be had in strict liability for personal injury and for property damage, there is debate over whether "economic loss" should be recoverable under the doctrine of strict liability. This comment will review existing case law to determine whether economic loss may be recovered from the manufacturer of a defective product under a …

The Case Against Strict Liability Protection For New Home Buyers In Ohio, Karen Doty

Akron Law Review

In Ohio, home buyers have several means available to protect their investment and assure themselves of getting their money's worth. First, and foremost, the Ohio courts, while not mandating either implied warranties of habitability or strict liability, have offered some protection to the consumer in holding builders to a standard of workmanship commensurate with that prevailing in the trade locally. Ohio courts also recognize collateral covenants with regard to construction that do not merge with the deed when title is transferred.

Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability For Ultra-Hazardous Activities From Strict Products Liability Under Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts: Two Parallel Lines Of Reasoning That Should Never Meet, Charles E. Cantu

Akron Law Review

The cornerstone of tort law in our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence is based upon three generally accepted principles. The first is that by awarding any individual monetary damages after their injury, we can make them whole, and the second is the concept of the reasonable prudent person. The third, and the focal point of this article, is that liability is imposed, and the corresponding right to recovery is created, not because of the fact that the plaintiff is injured, but because the injury is the result of the defendant’s fault.

Fault, as each first year law student is quick to …