2022 Ohio 2106
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On March 27, 2018 Roach purchased Samsung lithium-ion batteries from Vapor Station for use with a Pegasus mod e-cigarette; on April 1, 2018 the device exploded in his pocket, causing second- and third-degree burns.
- Roach sued Vapor Station (and unnamed John Does) on September 4, 2020 asserting product liability, negligence, fraudulent omission, breach of implied warranty, and a consumer protection claim.
- Vapor Station moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) arguing the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.10(A).
- Ohio Executive Order 2020-01D (declaring a state of emergency) and Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197 tolled statutory limitations retroactive to March 9, 2020 but only until July 30, 2020 (or until the emergency ended, whichever came sooner).
- Because Roach’s original deadline (April 1, 2020) was tolled beginning March 9, 2020, he had 23 days after tolling ended (until August 24, 2020) to file; Roach filed on September 4, 2020—11 days late.
- The trial court granted dismissal and denied equitable tolling; the appellate court affirmed, holding equitable tolling was inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling should extend the limitations period because of COVID-19 and related legislative/executive actions | Roach: pandemic-created ambiguity in Executive Order 2020-01D and Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197 prevented timely filing; he diligently pursued his rights and only learned of the deadline problem in October 2020 | Vapor Station: HB197 tolled limitations only until July 30, 2020; Roach filed after the restarted deadline; there was no misleading by defendant | Court: Equitable tolling denied. Roach’s misreading/ignorance of HB197/EO 2020-01D and lack of deception by defendant do not justify tolling; claims are time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (court must construe complaint in plaintiff's favor on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (limitations defense may be decided on the face of the complaint when the statute of limitations is clear)
- Celeste v. Wiseco Piston, 151 Ohio App.3d 554 (2003) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)
- Chapman Enters., Inc. v. McClain, 165 Ohio St.3d 428 (2021) (interpretation of HB197 tolling period and its end date)
- State ex rel. Scherfling v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 152 Ohio App.3d 484 (2003) (ignorance of legal rights generally does not toll a statute of limitations)
- Larson v. Am. Wheel & Brake, Inc., 610 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1979) (federal authority cited for the proposition that ignorance of rights does not toll the statute)