prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,856 Peter R. Briney v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWellford, Circuit Judge
I concur in Judge Contie’s well reasoned disposition of the design defect claim based on a strict liability theory set out in Part IIB of the opinion. I concur also in the disposition of the claimed error in the jury verdict as set out in Part III.
I would, however, affirm the district court in its directed verdict on the negligent design claim. The actions of Briney constituted not only a clear assumption of risk but, in my view, that kind of negligence and disregard of intended use of the saw in question that would preclude any reasonable trier of fact from reaching a decision for plaintiff.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
- Di Gildo v. CaponiOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.