Legal Opinion

Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1995No. Nos. 94-115 and 94-1041PublishedCited by 295 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

We are asked in this case to set forth the appropriate summary judgment standard for causation in asbestos cases, and specifically, whether Ohio *683courts should adopt the Lohrmann test. While this court is aware of the docketing problems that may exist with asbestos-exposure cases, we will not cause plaintiffs in such cases to carry a greater summary judgment burden than other personal injury plaintiffs. In our view, the Lohrmann standard casts judges in an inappropriate role, is overly burdensome, and is unnecessary.

We are also asked in this case to adopt alternative liability as a possible…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Summers v. TiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  3. Pang v. MinchOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1987
  5. C. A. Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by295 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. ShewardOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distributing Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002

290 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API