2016 Ohio 8445
Ohio2016Background
- Ross Linert, a police officer driving a Ford CVPI, was rear-ended by a high-speed intoxicated driver, causing a fire spreading from a compromised fuel system.
- Linerts added Ford as a defendant in a products-liability action asserting postmarket duty to warn under R.C. 2307.76(A)(2).
- Trial evidence showed the Panther-platform fuel-tank design, with the tank located behind the axle in older models, later moved forward in most models; Ford implemented a crimp-improvement project in 2007.
- Expert testimony suggested the CVPI fuel tank was vulnerable to puncture and fuel-sender dislodgement in crashes, with prior incidents cited by Linerts’ theory of notice.
- The trial court instructed only on sale-time warnings and refused a postmarket warning instruction; the jury found Ford not liable on all claims.
- Appellate court reversed on the postmarket warning issue, but the supreme court ultimately held no postmarket duty to warn and remanded to reinstate Ford’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post-market duty to warn instruction was required under R.C. 2307.76(A)(2). | Linerts argued Ford had post-sale knowledge of fire risks and failed to warn. | Ford contended no postmarket duty to warn; the risk was not sufficiently proven as to likelihood. | The court held no postmarket duty to warn instruction required; judgment for Ford affirmed in remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096 (Illinois 2011) (postmarket duties distinguished from at-sale warnings)
- Flaugher v. Cone Automatic Machine Co., 30 Ohio St.3d 60 (Ohio 1987) (criteria for when warning is required and admissible evidence)
- Brown v. McDonald’s Corp., 101 Ohio App.3d 294 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. 1995) (consideration of likelihood and seriousness of harm in postmarket warnings)
- Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 Kan. 741 (Kan. 1993) (post-sale duty to warn requires knowledge after sale)
- Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (N.Y. 1984) (post-sale duty to warn exists when new dangers become known)
- Sapp v. Stoney Ridge Truck Tire, 86 Ohio App.3d 86 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 1993) (distinguishes between warning at sale and post-sale warnings)