Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131, 24 Ohio B. 353, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 658

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1986

DocketNo. 85-466

StatusPublished

This text of 493 N.E.2d 1331 (Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp., 493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131, 24 Ohio B. 353, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 658 (Ohio 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Because a number of disputed questions of material fact remain, we hold that the trial court improperly granted Skyworker’s motion for summary judgment. See Civ. R. 56(C). These factual questions include: (1) whether the alleged defect was sufficiently patent to impose a duty upon Skyworker to warn Fisher of the danger, see State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp. (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 151, 157 [65 O.O.2d 374]; London v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 101 [53 O.O. 25]; (2) whether the co-owners of Skyworker in fact knew of the danger and therefore had a duty to warn Fisher; and (3) whether any such knowledge was obtained after Skyworker was incorporated and could therefore be imputed to the corporation. See Brown v. Logan Clay Products Co. (App. 1929), 7 Ohio Law Abs. 515; Alt v. Weber (Superior Ct. 1888), 10 Ohio Dec. Rep. 371. Appellant has raised sufficient questions' of material fact to require resolution by the finders of fact.

In addition, resolution of a number of other disputed facts will be relevant to Skyworker’s defense concerning Fisher’s negligence. Such questions include: (1) whether Fisher regularly had the skyworker serviced; (2) whether Fisher had been warned by Van Dyke of the degree of wear and advised to replace the rod-end assembly, but Fisher had refused to authorize such work, see Hendrix v. Eighth and Walnut Corp. (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 205; and (3) whether the machine had been used properly by Davenport or other of Fisher’s employees.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Sweeney, Locher, C. Brown and Wright, JJ., concur. Sweeney, C. Brown and Wright, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. Holmes and Douglas, JJ., dissent with opinion. Celebrezze, C.J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Because a number of disputed questions of material fact remain, we hold that the trial court improperly granted Skyworker’s motion for summary judgment. See Civ. R. 56(C). These factual questions include: (1) whether the alleged defect was sufficiently patent to impose a duty upon Skyworker to warn Fisher of the danger, see State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp. (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 151, 157 [65 O.O.2d 374]; London v. Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 101 [53 O.O. 25]; (2) whether the co-owners of Skyworker in fact knew of the danger and therefore had a duty to warn Fisher; and (3) whether any such knowledge was obtained after Skyworker was incorporated and could therefore be imputed to the corporation. See Brown v. Logan Clay Products Co. (App. 1929), 7 Ohio Law Abs. 515; Alt v. Weber (Superior Ct. 1888), 10 Ohio Dec. Rep. 371. Appellant has raised sufficient questions' of material fact to require resolution by the finders of fact.

In addition, resolution of a number of other disputed facts will be relevant to Skyworker’s defense concerning Fisher’s negligence. Such questions include: (1) whether Fisher regularly had the skyworker serviced; (2) whether Fisher had been warned by Van Dyke of the degree of wear and advised to replace the rod-end assembly, but Fisher had refused to authorize such work, see Hendrix v. Eighth and Walnut Corp. (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 205; and (3) whether the machine had been used properly by Davenport or other of Fisher’s employees.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Sweeney, Locher, C. Brown and Wright, JJ., concur. Sweeney, C. Brown and Wright, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. Holmes and Douglas, JJ., dissent with opinion. Celebrezze, C.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131, 24 Ohio B. 353, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-correct-manufacturing-corp-ohio-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack