reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.73 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.73 | Liability of Manufacturer - Enterprise Liability Rejected.

Effective: October 31, 2007|Latest Legislation:  Senate Bill 117 - 126th General Assembly|(A) A manufacturer is subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim only if the claimant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the following: (1) Subject to division (B) of this section, the manufacturer's product in question was defective in manufacture or construction as described in section 2307.74 of the Revised Code, was defective in design or formulation as described in section 2307.75 of the Revised Code, was defective due to inadequate warning or instruction as described in section 2307.76 of the Revised Code, or was defective because it did not conform to a representation made by its manufacturer as described in section 2307.77 of the Revised Code;(2) A defective aspect of the manufacturer's product in question as described in division (A)(1) of this section was a proximate cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages;(3) The manufacturer designed, formulated, produced, constructed, created, assembled, or rebuilt the actual product that was the cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages.(B) If a claimant is unable because the manufacturer's product in question was destroyed to establish by direct evidence that the manufacturer's product in question was defective or if a claimant otherwise is unable to establish by direct evidence that the manufacturer's product in question was defective, then, consistent with the Rules of Evidence, it shall be sufficient for the claimant to present circumstantial or other competent evidence that establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the manufacturer's product in question was defective in any one of the four respects specified in division (A)(1) of this section.(C) Proof that a manufacturer designed, formulated, produced, constructed, created, assembled, or rebuilt the type of product in question is not proof that the manufacturer designed, formulated, produced, constructed, created, assembled, or rebuilt the actual defective product in the product liability claim. A manufacturer may not be held liable in a product liability action based on market share, enterprise, or industrywide liability.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.74 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.74 | Product Defective in Manufacture or Construction.

Effective: January 5, 1988|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 1 - 117th General Assembly|A product is defective in manufacture or construction if, when it left the control of its manufacturer, it deviated in a material way from the design specifications, formula, or performance standards of the manufacturer, or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same design specifications, formula, or performance standards. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction as described in this section even though its manufacturer exercised all possible care in its manufacture or construction.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.76 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.76 | Product Defective Due to Inadequate Warning or Instruction.

Effective: January 5, 1988|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 1 - 117th General Assembly|(A) Subject to divisions (B) and (C) of this section, a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction if either of the following applies:(1) It is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction at the time of marketing if, when it left the control of its manufacturer, both of the following applied:(a) The manufacturer knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk that is associated with the product and that allegedly caused harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages;(b) The manufacturer failed to provide the warning or instruction that a manufacturer exercising reasonable care would have provided concerning that risk, in light of the likelihood that the product would cause harm of the type for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages and in light of the likely seriousness of that harm.(2) It is defective due to inadequate post-marketing warning or instruction if, at a relevant time after it left the control of its manufacturer, both of the following applied:(a) The manufacturer knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk that is associated with the product and that allegedly caused harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages;(b) The manufacturer failed to provide the post-marketing warning or instruction that a manufacturer exercising reasonable care would have provided concerning that risk, in light of the likelihood that the product would cause harm of the type for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages and in light of the likely seriousness of that harm.(B) A product is not defective due to lack of warning or instruction or inadequate warning or instruction as a result of the failure of its manufacturer to warn or instruct about an open and obvious risk or a risk that is a matter of common knowledge.(C) An ethical drug is not defective due to inadequate warning or instruction if its manufacturer provides otherwise adequate warning and instruction to the physician or other legally authorized person who prescribes or dispenses that ethical drug for a claimant in question and if the federal food and drug administration has not provided that warning or instruction relative to that ethical drug is to be given directly to the ultimate user of it.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.77 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.77 | Product Conforming to Representation Made by Manufacturer.

Effective: January 5, 1988|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 1 - 120th General Assembly|A product is defective if it did not conform, when it left the control of its manufacturer, to a representation made by that manufacturer. A product may be defective because it did not conform to a representation even though its manufacturer did not act fraudulently, recklessly, or negligently in making the representation.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.78 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.78 | Liability of Supplier.

Effective: July 6, 2001|Latest Legislation:  Senate Bill 108 - 124th General Assembly|(A) Subject to division (B) of this section, a supplier is subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim only if the claimant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that either of the following applies: (1) The supplier in question was negligent and that, negligence was a proximate cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages; (2) The product in question did not conform, when it left the control of the supplier in question, to a representation made by that supplier, and that representation and the failure to conform to it were a proximate cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages. A supplier is subject to liability for such a representation and the failure to conform to it even though the supplier did not act fraudulently, recklessly, or negligently in making the representation.(B) A supplier of a product is subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim under sections 2307.71 to 2307.77 of the Revised Code, as if it were the manufacturer of that product, if the manufacturer of that product is or would be subject to liability for compensatory damages based on a product liability claim under sections 2307.71 to 2307.77 of the Revised Code and any of the following applies:(1) The manufacturer of that product is not subject to judicial process in this state;(2) The claimant will be unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer of that product due to actual or asserted insolvency of the manufacturer;(3) The supplier in question owns or, when it supplied that product, owned, in whole or in part, the manufacturer of that product;(4) The supplier in question is owned or, when it supplied that product, was owned, in whole or in part, by the manufacturer of that product;(5) The supplier in question created or furnished a manufacturer with the design or formulation that was used to produce, create, make, construct, assemble, or rebuild that product or a component of that product;(6) The supplier in question altered, modified, or failed to maintain that product after it came into the possession of, and before it left the possession of, the supplier in question, and the alteration, modification, or failure to maintain that product rendered it defective;(7) The supplier in question marketed that product under its own label or trade name;(8) The supplier in question failed to respond timely and reasonably to a written request by or on behalf of the claimant to disclose to the claimant the name and address of the manufacturer of that product.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.79 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.79 | Compensatory Damages for Economic Loss From Manufacturer or Supplier.

Effective: January 5, 1988|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 1 - 117th General Assembly|(A) If a claimant is entitled to recover compensatory damages for harm from a manufacturer in accordance with section 2307.73 of the Revised Code or from a supplier in accordance with division (B) of section 2307.78 of the Revised Code, the claimant may recover from the manufacturer or supplier in question, in that action, compensatory damages for any economic loss that proximately resulted from the defective aspect of the product in question.(B) If a claimant is entitled to recover compensatory damages for harm from a supplier in accordance with division (A) of section 2307.78 of the Revised Code, the claimant may recover from the supplier in question, in that action, compensatory damages for any economic loss that proximately resulted from the negligence of that supplier or from the representation made by that supplier and the failure of the product in question to conform to that representation.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.87 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.87 | Silicosis or Mixed Dust Disease Claim - Filing of Evidence of Physical Impairment - Challenge - Administrative Dismissal.

Effective: September 1, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 342 - 125th General Assembly|(A) The plaintiff in any tort action who alleges a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim shall file, within thirty days after filing the complaint or other initial pleading, a written report and supporting test results constituting prima-facie evidence of the exposed person's physical impairment that meets the minimum requirements specified in division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.85 or division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.86 of the Revised Code, whichever is applicable. The defendant in the case shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity, upon the defendant's motion, to challenge the adequacy of the proffered prima-facie evidence of the physical impairment for failure to comply with the minimum requirements specified in division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.85 or division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.86 of the Revised Code, whichever is applicable. The defendant has one hundred twenty days from the date the prima-facie evidence of the exposed person's physical impairment is proffered to challenge the adequacy of that prima-facie evidence. If the defendant makes that challenge and uses a physician to do so, the physician must meet the requirements specified in divisions (I)(1), (3), and (4) of section 2307.84 of the Revised Code.(B) If the defendant challenges the adequacy of the prima-facie evidence of the exposed person's physical impairment as provided in division (A) of this section, the court shall determine from all of the evidence submitted whether the proffered prima-facie evidence meets the minimum requirements specified in division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.85 or division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.86 of the Revised Code, whichever is applicable. The court shall resolve the issue of whether the plaintiff has made the prima-facie showing required by any of those divisions as applicable, by applying the standard for resolving a motion for summary judgment.(C) The court shall administratively dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice upon a finding of failure to make the prima-facie showing required by division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.85 or division (B), (C), or (D) of section 2307.86 of the Revised Code, whichever is applicable. The court shall maintain its jurisdiction over any case that is administratively dismissed under this division. Any plaintiff whose case has been administratively dismissed under this division may move to reinstate the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff makes a prima-facie showing that meets the minimum requirements specified in any of those divisions as applicable.(D) This section applies only to tort actions that allege a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim and that are filed on or after the effective date of this section.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.88 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.88 | Silicosis or Mixed Dust Disease Claim - Tolling of Statute of Limitations - Nonmalignant and Cancer Claims Distinct.

Effective: September 1, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 342 - 125th General Assembly|(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, with respect to any silicosis claim or mixed dust disease claim based upon a nonmalignant condition that is not barred as of the effective date of this section, the period of limitations shall not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that the person has a physical impairment due to a nonmalignant condition. A silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim based upon a nonmalignant condition that is filed before the cause of action pursuant to this division arises is preserved for purposes of the period of limitations.(B) A silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim that arises out of a nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action from a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim, as the case may be, relating to the same exposed person that arises out of silica-related cancer or mixed dust-related cancer. No damages shall be awarded for fear or risk of cancer in any tort action asserting only a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim for a nonmalignant condition.(C) No settlement of a silicosis claim or a mixed dust disease claim for a nonmalignant condition that is concluded after the effective date of this section shall require, as a condition of settlement, the release of any future claim for silica-related cancer or mixed dust-related cancer.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.90 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.90 | Silicosis or Mixed Dust Disease Claim - Operation of Other Laws Unaffected - Exhumation Not Required.

Effective: September 1, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 342 - 125th General Assembly|(A) Nothing in sections 2307.84 to 2307.90 of the Revised Code is intended to do, and nothing in any of those sections is interpreted to do, either of the following:(1) Affect the rights of any party in bankruptcy proceedings;(2) Affect the ability of any person who is able to make a showing that the person satisfies the claim criteria for compensable claims or demands under a trust established pursuant to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Chapter 11, to make a claim or demand against that trust.(B) Sections 2307.84 to 2307.90 of the Revised Code shall not affect the scope or operation of any workers' compensation law or veterans' benefit program or the exclusive remedy of subrogation under the provisions of that law or program and shall not authorize any lawsuit that is barred by any provision of any workers' compensation law.(C) Nothing in sections 2307.85, 2307.86, 2307.87, and 2307.88 of the Revised Code shall require or permit the exhumation of bodies in making the prima-facie showing as required by section 2307.85 or 2307.86 of the Revised Code or rebutting the presumption as provided in section 2307.85 or 2307.86 of the Revised Code.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.901 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.901 | Silicosis or Mixed Dust Disease Claim - Multiple Defendants - Substantial Factor Test.

Effective: September 1, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 342 - 125th General Assembly|(A) If a plaintiff in a tort action alleges any injury or loss to person resulting from exposure to silica or mixed dust as a result of the tortious act of one or more defendants, in order to maintain a cause of action against any of those defendants based on that injury or loss, the plaintiff must prove that the conduct of that particular defendant was a substantial factor in causing the injury or loss on which the cause of action is based.(B) A plaintiff in a tort action who alleges any injury or loss to person resulting from exposure to silica or mixed dust has the burden of proving that the plaintiff was exposed to silica or mixed dust that was manufactured, supplied, installed, or used by the defendant in the action and that the plaintiff's exposure to the defendant's silica or mixed dust was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury or loss. In determining whether exposure to a particular defendant's silica or mixed dust was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury or loss, the trier of fact in the action shall consider, without limitation, all of the following:(1) The manner in which the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant's silica or mixed dust;(2) The proximity of the defendant's silica or mixed dust to the plaintiff when the exposure to the defendant's silica or mixed dust occurred;(3) The frequency and length of the plaintiff's exposure to the defendant's silica or mixed dust;(4) Any factors that mitigated or enhanced the plaintiff's exposure to silica or mixed dust.(C) This section applies only to tort actions that allege any injury or loss to person resulting from exposure to silica or mixed dust and that are brought on or after the effective date of this section.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.94 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.94 | Asbestos Claim - Tolling of Statute of Limitations - Nonmalignant and Cancer Claims Distinct.

Effective: September 2, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 292 - 125th General Assembly|(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, with respect to any asbestos claim based upon a nonmalignant condition that is not barred as of the effective date of this section, the period of limitations shall not begin to run until the exposed person has a cause of action for bodily injury pursuant to section 2305.10 of the Revised Code. An asbestos claim based upon a nonmalignant condition that is filed before the cause of action for bodily injury pursuant to that section arises is preserved for purposes of the period of limitations.(B) An asbestos claim that arises out of a nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action from an asbestos claim relating to the same exposed person that arises out of asbestos-related cancer. No damages shall be awarded for fear or risk of cancer in any tort action asserting only an asbestos claim for a nonmalignant condition.(C) No settlement of an asbestos claim for a nonmalignant condition that is concluded after the effective date of this section shall require, as a condition of settlement, the release of any future claim for asbestos-related cancer.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.95 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.95 | Asbestos Claim - Operation of Other Laws Unaffected.

Effective: September 2, 2004|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 292 - 125th General Assembly|(A) Nothing in sections 2307.92 to 2307.95 of the Revised Code is intended to do, and nothing in any of those sections shall be interpreted to do, either of the following:(1) Affect the rights of any party in bankruptcy proceedings;(2) Affect the ability of any person who is able to make a showing that the person satisfies the claim criteria for compensable claims or demands under a trust established pursuant to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Chapter 11, to make a claim or demand against that trust.(B) Sections 2307.91 to 2307.95 of the Revised Code shall not affect the scope or operation of any workers' compensation law or veterans' benefit program or the exclusive remedy of subrogation under the provisions of that law or program and shall not authorize any lawsuit that is barred by any provision of any workers' compensation law.(C) Except as provided in division (D) of section 2307.92 of the Revised Code and in other provisions that relate to the application of that division and the procedures and criteria it contains, nothing in sections 2307.92, 2307.93, 2307.94, and 2307.95 of the Revised Code is intended, and nothing in any of those sections shall be interpreted, to affect any wrongful death claim, as described in section 2125.01 of the Revised Code.
Ohio Rev Code § 2307.951 (2021)
2021 Ohio Revised Code|Title 23 | Courts-Common Pleas|Chapter 2307 | Civil Actions|Section 2307.951 | Definitions for Rc Sections 2307.952 to 2307.954.

Effective: March 27, 2013|Latest Legislation:  House Bill 380 - 129th General Assembly|As used in this section and sections 2307.952 to 2307.954 of the Revised Code: (A) "Asbestos," "asbestos claim," and "tort action" have the same meanings as in section 2307.91 of the Revised Code.(B) "Asbestos tort action" means a tort action based on an asbestos claim.(C) Except as otherwise provided in division (E) of section 2307.954 of the Revised Code, "asbestos trust" means and encompasses all trust entities, claims agents, or claims processing facilities that are created pursuant to the jurisdiction of a United States bankruptcy court and section 524(g) of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 524(g), or other applicable provision of law, that are formed for the purpose of compensating claimants asserting eligible asbestos claims, and that are in existence on the date initially set for trial in the asbestos tort action.(D) "Asbestos trust claim" means any claim for compensation by an exposed person or the exposed person's representative against any asbestos trust.(E) "Cancer" means a malignant condition.(F) "Claimant" means any person asserting an asbestos claim or asbestos trust claim. "Claimant" includes a plaintiff, counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff.(G) "Exposed person" means any person whose exposure to asbestos or to asbestos-containing products is the basis for an asbestos claim.(H) "Noncancer" means a nonmalignant condition.(I) "Proof of claim" means any form of documentation that a potential claimant against an asbestos trust submits or provides to the asbestos trust that attests to or asserts the existence of any liquidated or unliquidated asbestos claim that the claimant may have against the asbestos trust or its predecessors under any theory of law.(J) "Trust claims material" means documents constituting an asbestos trust claim, including, but not limited to, claim forms, proofs of claim, and informational material required by an asbestos trust to be submitted by a claimant in order to have the claim evaluated by the asbestos trust and relied upon by the asbestos trust in making its compensation determination.