Jones v. Walker Mfg. Co.
2012 Ohio 1546
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Jones sustained partial finger injuries while clearing a clogged mower chute on a mower sold by Emmett Equipment Co. to Jones's father.
- Jones argued a warning label was obscured and claimed both statutory and common-law product-liability theories, plus breach of warranties.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the ten-year statute of repose (R.C. 2305.10(C)(1)) barred claims and that the Ohio Product Liability Act displaced common-law claims.
- The mower was manufactured in January 1994, first sold in February 1994; Emmett acquired it in 2004 and sold it to Jones's father in May 2004.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding all claims barred by the statute of repose or preempted by the Ohio Product Liability Act.
- On appeal, Jones challenged the applicability of the statute of repose to Emmett as a supplier and argued residual common-law claims could survive, which the court rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the statute of repose bar Jones's product-liability claims against Emmett? | Jones contends repose applies only to manufacturers, not Emmett as a supplier. | Emmett is a supplier and falls within the scope of the repose statute, which bars claims after 10 years from first delivery. | Yes; repose bars claims against Emmett. |
| Is Emmett shielded from liability as a supplier because the mower was delivered to a first purchaser more than ten years earlier? | The supplier cannot be shielded by repose when it did not manufacture the product. | R.C. 2305.10(C)(1) applies to manufacturers and suppliers; Emmett qualifies as a supplier and is barred. | Yes; repose applies to Emmett as supplier. |
| Do Groch and related authorities permit claims against suppliers who resell without reconditioning to avoid repose? | Groch suggests suppliers who resell should not be immunized if they know of safety defects. | Groch does not create an exception for suppliers; repose can bar such claims where appropriate. | Yes; repose can bar supplier-resale claims; Emmett did not recondition the mower. |
| Are Jones's common-law claims superseded by statutory provisions (R.C. 2307.71(B))? | Common-law claims survive despite statutory changes. | R.C. 2307.71(B) abrogates all common-law product-liability claims post-enactment. | Yes; common-law claims are superseded and barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedar v. Knowlton Constr. Co., 49 Ohio St.3d 193 (1990) (statute of repose extinguishes claims after fixed period)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (2008) (statutes of repose not a judicial dead-end; other parties may be liable)
- Richardson v. Gallo Equip. Co., 990 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1993) (reconstruction/rehab beyond ten years restarts repose; repair vs reconditioning distinction)
- Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1985) (merely incorporating a defective component does not immunize under repose)