Cremeans v. Willmar Henderson Manufacturing Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The first issue *147presented by this appeal is whether the defense of assumption of risk bars Cremeans from recovery on his products liability claim against Willmar based upon strict liability in tort. Cremeans will be barred from recovery on his claim if he voluntarily and unreasonably assumed a known risk posed by the defective1 product manufactured by Willmar. Onderko v. Richmond Mfg. Co. (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 296, 31 OBR 576, 511 N.E. 2d 388, syllabus.
The defense of assumption of risk is a product of laissez-faire economics and evolved in master and servant cases. See Williamson v. Smith…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- Anderson v. CeccardiOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Scott v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- Williamson v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Carrel v. Allied Products Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- ADM Partnership v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Staub v. Toy Factory, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Whiston v. Bio-Lab, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Mark v. Mellott Manufacturing Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.