Brown v. McDonald's Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnManufacturer liabilitySupplier negligenceSummary judgmentsummary judgmentfailure to warn

Facts

Susan Brown bought and ate a McLean Deluxe at a McDonald's franchise owned by Potts and shortly afterward developed a rash, tight chest, blue lips, and hives requiring immediate treatment and a five-hour hospital stay. The Browns alleged that carrageenan, a seaweed-derived ingredient in the sandwich, caused the reaction and that defendants knew or should have known of the risk but failed to warn. McDonald's and Keystone participated in development of the McLean, and Potts sold it at his restaurant. The defendants pointed to an ingredient flier listing carrageenan, but Brown testified she did not receive it and did not know it was available.

Issue

Whether summary judgment was proper for McDonald's and Keystone on the Browns' statutory product-liability failure-to-warn claims, and for Potts on the Browns' supplier-liability theories. More specifically, the court considered whether the Browns produced evidence creating genuine issues of material fact on defect, duty to warn, and causation as to the manufacturers, and on duty as to the supplier.

Rule

Under R.C. 2307.73 and 2307.76, a manufacturer is liable for compensatory damages on a product-liability claim only if the claimant shows the product was defective due to inadequate warning or instruction and that the defective aspect proximately caused the harm. A product is defective due to inadequate warning if, when it left the manufacturer's control or at a relevant post-marketing time, the manufacturer knew or should have known of the associated risk and failed to provide the warning a reasonably careful manufacturer would have given in light of the likelihood and seriousness of the harm; there is no duty to warn of open and obvious or common-knowledge risks. Under R.C. 2307.78, supplier liability is limited to negligence, strict liability based on an express representation, or certain manufacturer-linked circumstances; an implied warranty theory does not satisfy the statute's express-representation requirement. A supplier is negligent for failing to warn only when it knows or has reason to know of a latent defect rendering the product unsafe, and absent such knowledge or reason to know, it has no duty to inspect or investigate further.

🔒

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, Nova Hearth Foods helped design and formulate a frozen breakfast wrap that was later sold through neighborhood markets. After eating one, Elena Park sued Nova Hearth under both manufacturer and supplier theories, arguing that because Nova Hearth also distributed the wrap, it fit both categories.

How should the court classify Nova Hearth for purposes of the Ohio products-liability statutes discussed in the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority held that a defendant engaged in designing, formulating, or producing the product is a manufacturer, and the statutory definition of supplier expressly excludes manufacturers. Thus, even if Nova Hearth also distributed the wrap, it would be treated as a manufacturer only, not both. (Derived from Brown v. McDonald's Corp. (n.d.).)