Legal Opinion

LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1996No. 94-1128PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

We find that since appellants’ claim is not a product liability claim pursuant to statute, R.C. 2307.71 to 2307.80 do not preempt their cause of action. Instead, they have a possible claim for breach of an implied warranty against Collinwood.

I

Ohio’s product liability statutes, by their plain language, neither cover nor abolish claims for purely economic loss caused by defective products. The appellate court correctly noted that the damages the LaPumas sought in their complaint were economic. They were suing for the replacement cost of the driveway, and “economic loss” is defined in R.C.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Iacono v. Anderson Concrete Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
  3. City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,948 Carla Kurczi v. Eli Lilly and Company (96-4124) Dart Industries, Inc., F/k/a Rexall Drug Company (96-4127)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  5. White v. Depuy, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1998

36 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