1995 OHIO 23 - Curtis v. Square-D Co.

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

73 Ohio St.3d 79

.]




CURTIS, APPELLEE, v. SQUARE-D COMPANY; OWENS MONTPELIER ELECTRIC,
                                    INC., APPELLANT.
                  [Cite as Curtis v. Square-D Co.,

1995-Ohio-23

.]
Civil actions—Products liability claims for bodily injury governed by two-year
        statute of limitations period in R.C. 2305.10 and not by six-year statute of
        limitations period in R.C. 2305.07.
       (No. 95-185—Submitted July 12, 1995—Decided August 16, 1995.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Williams County, No. 94WM000003.
                                  __________________
        Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and George C. Ward, for
appellant.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of
the trial court is reinstated on the authority of McAuliffe v. W. States Import Co.,
Inc. (1995),

72 Ohio St.3d 534

651 N.E.2d 957

.
        MOYER, C.J., WRIGHT, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
        DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent.
                                  __________________
        DOUGLAS, J., dissenting.
        {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent. I do so on the basis of Justice Francis E.
Sweeney's well-reasoned dissent in McAuliffe v. W. States Import Co., Inc. (1995),

72 Ohio St.3d 534

651 N.E.2d 957

. Given the majority opinion in McAuliffe, it
should now be understood that all common-law products liability causes of action
survive the enactment of R.C. 2307.71 et seq., the Ohio Product Liability Act,
unless specifically covered by the Act because the Act, according to the majority
in McAuliffe, "… falls short of creating a previously unavailable cause of action
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




…."

Id.

 at __,

651 N.E.2d at __

. The courts of appeals were right in both this
case and McAuliffe.
       RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
                             __________________




                                        2