Bowling v. Heil Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityComparative negligenceJoint and several liabilityContributionstrict liability in tortproducts liability

Facts

The case involved a products liability claim based on strict liability in tort against Heil. The jury found that plaintiff Bowling was contributorily negligent but did not assume a known risk. The jury also attributed a portion of fault to Robco, another defendant that had settled with the plaintiff. The legal dispute centered on whether Bowling's contributory negligence could reduce his strict liability recovery and whether Heil remained jointly and severally liable despite the contribution statutes.

Issue

Does comparative negligence or comparative fault apply to a products liability action based on strict liability in tort, so that a plaintiff's contributory negligence reduces recovery? Did Ohio's Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act abolish joint and several liability among tortfeasors liable for the same injury?

Rule

In Ohio, principles of comparative negligence or comparative fault have no application to a products liability case based upon strict liability in tort. In such cases, plaintiff misconduct is a defense only if it constitutes voluntary and knowing assumption of the risk of a known defect or misuse of the product in an unforeseeable manner. Ohio's Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, R.C. 2307.31 and 2307.32, governs contribution among tortfeasors inter se and does not abolish joint and several liability as to the injured plaintiff.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Nina Patel was injured when a home meat slicer manufactured by Lakefront Equipment Co. suddenly activated because of an internal wiring defect. Nina sued the manufacturer on a strict products liability theory. The jury found Nina had carelessly failed to unplug the slicer before wiping it down, but also found she did not know about the wiring defect or the danger it created.

How should the court treat Nina's careless conduct in calculating her recovery on the strict liability claim?

Explanation. In a strict products liability action, comparative negligence or comparative fault does not apply. Plaintiff misconduct is a defense only if it constitutes voluntary and knowing assumption of the risk of a known defect, or unforeseeable misuse. Mere contributory negligence that does not rise to those defenses does not reduce recovery.