Legal Opinion

Bowling v. Heil Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1987No. 86-823PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert R. Brown, J.

Two related issues are presented in this case: first, whether principles of comparative negligence or comparative fault are applicable to a products liability action based upon strict liability in tort; and second, whether the enactment of Ohio’s Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, R.C. 2307.31 and 2307.32, abolished the doctrine of joint and several liability. For the reasons that follow, we answer both questions in the negative.

I

The court of appeals below held that Ohio’s comparative negligence statute, R.C. 2315.19, does not apply to a products liability action grounded upon strict…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Daly v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  2. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Crislip v. TCH Liquidating Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Carrel v. Allied Products Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

51 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