Opinion ID: 2973770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Adequately Warn

Text: -5- No. 05-3916 Wade v. Diamant Boart, Inc. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Diamant Boart failed to adequately warn users of the dangers posed by the arbor drive shaft belts located under the Quanta’s hood. The district court held that Plaintiff could not prevail on this claim as a matter of law because of the undisputed fact that he ignored the warning directing operators to read the instruction manual and was, therefore, not aware of the warnings and maintenance instructions provided in the manual. The district court found that Plaintiff’s failure to read and heed the warnings provided necessarily precluded Plaintiff from being able to establish that the alleged failure to adequately warn was the proximate cause of his injuries. The district court’s ruling was correct.1 Plaintiff acknowledged that if he had read and followed the maintenance instruction in the operator’s manual, his accident would not have happened. Ohio law is clear that where a plaintiff fails to read and/or follow clear instructions, and where the accident would not have happened had the plaintiff followed the instructions, the plaintiff’s failure to adequately warn claim fails for lack of the requisite proximate cause. See Freas v. Prater Construction, 573 N.E.2d 27, 31-32 (Ohio 1991); Sheets v. Schmidt & Assocs., Inc., No. C-020726, 2003 WL 21414790, at ¶ 12 (Ohio Ct. App. June 20, 2003) (citing Richards v. C. Schmidt Co., 561 N.E.2d 569, 571-72 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989); Lewis v. Clark Equip. Co., No. C- 020271, 2003 WL 1571581, at ¶ 8 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2003)); see also Mohney v. USA Hockey, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 556, 578 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (citing Hisrich v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., 226 F.3d 445, 451-53 (6th Cir. 2000); Phan v. Presrite Corp., 653 N.E.2d 708, 711 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)). 1 Plaintiff’s brief implied, and at oral argument his counsel explicitly stated, that the district court’s dismissal of the failure to adequately warn claim is not being challenged on appeal. -6- No. 05-3916 Wade v. Diamant Boart, Inc. Since Plaintiff did not read the operator’s manual, he would not have been aware of any additional or more specific warnings even if they have been provided. Consequently, any such failure to adequately warn did not cause Plaintiff’s injury. Similarly, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to heed the warning printed on the Quanta itself to read the operator’s manual, there is no indication that Plaintiff would have heeded any other warnings which might have been placed directly on the Quanta. Since Plaintiff did not establish the necessary element of proximate cause for his failure to adequately warn claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment on that claim.