Byers v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court
Byers v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 73 Ohio St. 3d 51 (Ohio 1995)
652 N.E.2d 643
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

Byers v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.

Opinion of the Court

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated on the authority of McAuliffe v. W. States Import Co., Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 534, 651 N.E.2d 957.

Moyer, C.J., Wright, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I do so on the basis of Justice Francis E. Sweeney’s well-reasoned dissent in McAuliffe v. W. States Import Co., Inc. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 534, 651 N.E.2d 957. Given the majority opinion in McAuliffe, it should now be understood that all common-law products liability causes of action survive the enactment of R.C. 2307.71 et seq., the Ohio Product Liability Act, unless specifically covered by the Act because the Act, according to the majority in McAuliffe, “ * * * falls short of creating a previously unavailable cause of action * * *.” Id. at 538, 651 N.E.2d at 960. The courts of appeals were right in both this case and McAuliffe.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name
Byers v. Consolidated Aluminum Corporation Stamco Corporation
Cited By
11 cases
Status
Published