Temple v. Wean United, Inc.
- Court
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Decided
- June 29, 1977
- Docket
- No. 76-946
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
Cited 3,797 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding duty to warn does not extend to speculative anticipation of how manufactured components, not in and of themselves dangerous or defective, can become potentially dangerous depending on integration into unit designed and assembled by another — Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc. (1996)
- providing that a plaintiff must prove that the product was defective when it was manufactured and sold by the defendant, that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s control, and that the defect proximately caused the plaintiffs injury or loss — Waters v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (2015)
- adopting Section 402A and noting, “Under Ohio law, a defect is considered to exist in a product which is not of good and merchantable quality, fit and safe for its ordinary intended use.” (quotation omitted) — Kuns v. Ford Motor Co. (2013)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
I.
Celebuezze, J.
This is a products liability action brought under theories of negligence, implied warranty, and strict liability in tort. The latter two counts are virtually indistinguishable,[1] and appellants concede by their brief that implied warranty has been included as a theory of liability in order to comply with the terminology of Ohio law.
Cite this
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St. 2d 317 (1977)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.