Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court addresses products-liability claims arising from injuries caused by a power press, including strict liability, negligent failure to warn, and negligent design. The court holds that the purchaser’s substantial modification of the press constituted a substantial change and was the sole responsible cause of the injury, and it affirms summary judgment for the manufacturer and related defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio should approve Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the standard for strict products liability.
- Whether the purchaser's alteration of the power press constituted a substantial change under Section 402A(1)(b), defeating strict-liability claims against the manufacturer and vendor.
- Whether the component manufacturer had a duty to warn of dangers arising from the manner in which its otherwise nondefective components were integrated into another party's machine.
- Whether the manufacturer was negligent for failing to design the press with a fixed barrier guard.
- Whether summary judgment and protective orders were properly granted.
Holdings
- Ohio approves Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the standard governing strict liability in tort for defective products.
- The manufacturer and subsequent vendor were not strictly liable because the press had no original defect and the purchaser substantially changed its safety-device configuration after purchase.
- Square D had no duty to warn of a danger created by the speculative manner in which its otherwise nondefective components were integrated into the power press.
- Defendants were not liable for negligent failure to warn because they neither knew nor could have known of a defect created by the purchaser's post-sale alteration.
- As a matter of law, the manufacturer was not negligent for failing to provide a fixed barrier guard because Ohio's applicable safety regulation recognized either a fixed barrier guard or a two-hand tripping device as acceptable guarding methods, and the press had the latter.
- Summary judgment for the appellees and the protective orders were properly granted.
Key quotations
“Because there are virtually no distinctions between Ohio’s “implied warranty in tort” theory and the Restatement version of strict liability in tort, and because the Restatement formulation, together with its numerous illustrative comments, greatly facilitates analysis in this area, we hereby approve Section 402 A of the Restatement of Torts 2d.” (322)
“Clearly, in relation to the danger of unintentional activation, this alteration was a “substantial change” within the meaning of Section 402 A (l)(b).” (323)
“In view of this regulation, which specifies that either a fixed barrier guard or a two-hand tripping device (with which this press was equipped) are acceptable methods of guarding, this court holds that the question of whether or not the manufacturer was negligent in not providing fixed barrier guards should be answered, as a matter of law, in the negative.” (327)
Factual background
Mrs. Temple was injured while operating a power press manufactured by Wean United and equipped with operating buttons manufactured by Square D. After Superior purchased the press, it altered the button arrangement by lowering the buttons from shoulder height and positioning them waist high and twenty-four inches apart. Superior then used the press to stamp stock long enough to bridge the gap between the buttons, and the court concluded that this alteration and use created the dangerous condition that caused the injury.
Procedural history
The trial court entered summary judgment for the manufacturer, vendor, and component manufacturer and granted protective orders concerning depositions. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the record established the absence of an original product defect and that the purchaser's substantial alteration was the sole responsible cause of the injury, and it affirmed the judgment.