Schwering v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.
132 Ohio St. 3d 129
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Schwering sued Ford Motor Company and TRW Safety Systems, Inc. for products-liability and negligence arising from a 2002 rollover accident that killed Schwering's wife and injured Schwering; he filed the complaint Oct. 17, 2003 in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.
- The design of the Explorer's seatbelt system was alleged to be unreasonably dangerous and defective, causing the death and injuries.
- Trial began May 28, 2009; Steven Meyer testified regarding an alternative restraint-system design; Ford moved to strike the testimony and then the court granted and later reversed, leading to a mistrial on June 8, 2009.
- Prior to retrial Schwering filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a).
- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified a question of state law about Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) after a mistrial; the Ohio Supreme Court held that unilateral, without-prejudice dismissal is not allowed when a mistrial is declared after trial has commenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) allows unilateral dismissal without prejudice after mistrial. | Schwering contends mistrial nullified the first trial for Civ.R. 41 purposes. | Ford/TRW contend dismissal cannot be without prejudice once trial has commenced. | No; cannot dismiss without prejudice after mistrial when trial commenced. |
| When does trial commence for Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) purposes? | Schwering argues commencement occurred after mistrial, reviving right. | Defendants argue commencement occurred at trial start; no revival. | Commencement occurs when the jury is empaneled and sworn. |
| Does a mistrial render the prior proceedings a nullity reviving Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) rights? | Mistrial nullifies the trial, reopening the possibility to dismiss without prejudice. | Mistrial does not erase the fact that trial commenced and prior rulings stand for retrial. | Mistrial does not revive unilateral, without-prejudice dismissal rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chadwick v. Barba Lou, 69 Ohio St.2d 222 (1982) (approval of Civ.R. 41(A) structure to prevent endless retrials)
- Frazee v. Ellis Bros. Inc., 113 Ohio App.3d 828 (5th Dist.1996) (commencement of civil trial at empanelment/sworn status)
- Douthitt v. Garrison, 3 Ohio App.3d 254 (9th Dist.1981) (trial commencement definition for Civ.R. 41(A))
- Great Seneca Fin. Corp. v. Emler, 2005-Ohio-6465 (5th Dist.) (discussion of commencement and Civ.R. 41(A))
- Beckner v. Stover, 18 Ohio St.2d 36 (1969) (civ. procedure policy on avoiding endless appeals/retrials)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987) (purpose of Civ.R. 41 to prevent endless retry)