Case Title: Curtis v. Square-D Co.

Citation: 1995-Ohio-23

Docket Number: 19950185

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
    The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio                  
are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992,                     
pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas                  
J. Moyer.                                                                        
    Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                    
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
    NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                   
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Curtis, Appellee, v. Square-D Company; Owens Montpelier                          
Electric, Inc., Appellant.                                                       
[Cite as Curtis v. Square-D Co. (1995),     Ohio St.3d    .]                     
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. 95-185 -- Submitted July 12, 1995 -- Decided August                     
16, 1995.)                                                                       
    Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Williams County, No.                    
94WM000003.                                                                      
                                                                                 
    Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and George C. Ward,                  
for appellant.                                                                   
                                                                                 
    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),     Ohio                         
St.3d    ,     N.E.2d    .                                                       
    Moyer, C.J., Wright, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.                          
    Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.                             
Curtis v. Square-D Co.                                                           
    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),                       
Ohio St.3d    ,     N.E.2d    .  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    ,                      
N.E.2d at    .  The courts of appeals were right in both this                    
case and McAuliffe.                                                              
    Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing                       
dissenting opinion.