Legal Opinion
Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1981No. Nos. 80-336 and 80-360PublishedCited by 186 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
Case No. 80-336.
We turn first to the issues dealing with the alleged liability of Searle, Ovulen’s manufacturer and distributor. In Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 317, this court adopted Section 402 A of the Restatement of Torts 2d dealing with the theory of strict product liability. The first two paragraphs of the syllabus to that case state, in language substantially identical to Section 402 A, that:
“1. One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- Reyes v. Wyeth LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1980
- McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Lydia Basko v. Sterling Drug, Inc., and Winthrop LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by186 opinions
- Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- Bloxom v. BloxomSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1987
- Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1984
181 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.