Knitz v. Minster Machine Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
The case presents us with the question of whether a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 56 should have been granted to appellee. Before considering that issue, however, it is necessary to review first the proper legal standard to be applied to cases alleging a design defect in a manufactured product which causes injury.
I
Both parties assert that Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 317, is dispositive of this case. In Temple, the plaintiff was injured while operating a punch press when a number of aluminum extrusions fell from the bolster plate onto the dual operating…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by96 opinions
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- George BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Y & O PRESS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.