Byers v. Consol. Aluminum Corp.

1995 Ohio 216, 73 Ohio St. 3d 51

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: August 16, 1995
• Docket: 1994-1200
• Status: Published

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 73 Ohio St.3d 51.]

BYERS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION ET AL.; STAMCO CORPORATION, APPELLANT.

[Cite as Byers v. Consol. Aluminum Corp., 1995-Ohio-216.] Civil actions—Products liability claims for bodily injury governed by two-year statute of limitations period in R.C. 2305.10 and not by six-year statute of limitations period in R.C. 2305.07. (No. 94-1200—Submitted July 12, 1995—Decided August 16, 1995.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, No. 716. __________________ Wiles, Doucher, Van Buren & Boyle Co., L.P.A., Thomas E. Boyle and Jumana E. Trad, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} 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. ___________________ DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} 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 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

* * *." 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. __________________