We overrule its assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Moreover, there wasn't even an allegation of any physical damage to the city's property. Thus, any product liability claims failed as a matter of law. Next, nowhere in its 43-page complaint did the city identify even a single defective condition in a particular model of gun at the time it left its particular manufacturer. In fact, out of the complaint's 162 counts, the city's sole assertion naming a single manufacturer and its gun implicated none of the defendants, because the harm was caused by the intentional act of a criminal, not by the gun manufacturer.
Knives are sharp, bowling balls are heavy, bullets cause puncture wounds in the flesh.
The law has long recognized that obvious dangers are an excluded class. And no such relationships were cited by the city of Cincinnati. This claim alleged that the sale of handguns resulted in an increase in the city's expenditures for medical care and law enforcement. Thus, this claim fails. This doctrine bars recovery for indirect harm suffered as a result of injuries directly sustained by another person.