Opinion ID: 173569
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Law Abrogation

Text: We first address whether Buchanan may bring her claims under common law negligence theories at all or whether Ohio has abrogated by statute all common law products liability claims. The Ohio Products Liability Act defines a statutory product liability claim. O.R.C. § 2307.71(M). In addressing whether passage of the Act abrogated common law negligence claims, the Ohio Supreme Court in Carrel v. Allied Prod. Corp., 78 Ohio St.3d 284, 677 N.E.2d 795 (1997), held that in the absence of language clearly showing the intention to supersede the common law, the existing common law is not affected by the statute ... and that, therefore, the statute did not abolish common-law actions sounding in negligence. Id. at 798-99. In an amendment to the Act effective April 7, 2005, however, the Ohio General Assembly explicitly eliminated all common law product liability claims or causes of action. O.R.C. § 2307.71(B). Buchanan's claims were brought prior to the passage of this amendment, so her common law negligence claims would be abrogated only if the amendment applied retroactively. See Miles v. Raymond Corp., 612 F.Supp.2d 913, 920 (N.D.Ohio 2009). Since the amendment came into effect, at least three decisions of the Ohio Court of Appeals have held that the amendment is not retroactive, meaning that Buchanan's claims would not be abrogated. See Doty v. Fellhauer Elec., Inc., 175 Ohio App.3d 681, 888 N.E.2d 1138, 1142 (2008); Luthman v. Minster Supply Co., No. 2-06-43, 2008 WL 169999, at  (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2008) (unpublished); Hertzfeld v. Hayward Pool Prods., Inc., No. L-07-1168, 2007 WL 4563446, at  (Ohio. Ct.App. Dec. 31, 2007) (unpublished) (all holding that the amendments applied only prospectively and did not apply retroactively). The Doty court also noted that statutory-construction rules dictate that a statute is presumed to be prospective and that, although the amendment clearly states the intent to abrogate all common-law product-liability claims, it does not provide that causes of action accruing prior to the effective date would be subject to the amendment. Doty, 888 N.E.2d at 1142. The court therefore held that the amendment did not apply retroactively. Id. Buchanan filed her original complaint in 2003, well after the Act was enacted but before the 2005 amendment expressly abrogated all common law product liability claims. Thus, her negligence claims survive the enactment of the Ohio Products Liability Act and the 2005 amendment and are not abrogated. [5]