Bowling v. Heil Co.
31 Ohio B. 559, 511 N.E.2d 373, 31 Ohio St. 3d 277 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Principles of comparative negligence do not apply to reduce a plaintiff's recovery in a products liability action based on strict liability in tort. Furthermore, Ohio's Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act did not abolish the common law doctrine of joint and several liability.
Facts:
- The Heil Co. manufactured a dump hoist mechanism used on a truck owned by David Bowling.
- A metal rod connecting the control lever in the truck's cab to the lowering switch on the chassis broke.
- As a result of the broken rod, the truck's dump bed, which was loaded with several tons of gravel, became stuck in the raised position.
- Warning labels affixed to the truck instructed users to securely block the bed before performing any work on it while it was raised.
- Bowling did not block the truck bed to secure it.
- Bowling reached under the raised, loaded bed to manually operate the lowering switch.
- When Bowling activated the switch, the dump bed descended rapidly, crushing and killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathryn Bowling, as administratrix of her husband's estate, filed a lawsuit in an Ohio trial court against The Heil Co. and Robco, alleging claims including strict liability and negligence.
- Prior to trial, Bowling settled her claims against Robco.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Heil strictly liable, and also finding that Robco was 30% negligent and David Bowling was 30% contributorily negligent.
- The trial court entered judgment against Heil for the full verdict amount, reduced only by the amount of prior settlements.
- Heil Co., as appellant, appealed to the intermediate Ohio Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that comparative fault principles applied and reduced the judgment by 60% to account for the fault attributed to both Bowling and Robco.
- Kathryn Bowling, as appellant, then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do principles of comparative negligence or comparative fault apply to a products liability action based upon strict liability in tort to reduce a plaintiff's recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. Principles of comparative negligence or comparative fault have no application to a products liability case based upon strict liability in tort. Ohio's comparative negligence statute, R.C. 2315.19, by its explicit terms, applies only to 'negligence actions.' Strict liability is a separate and distinct legal doctrine that focuses on the defective and dangerous condition of a product, not on the conduct of the manufacturer. The policy underlying strict liability is risk-spreading—placing the burden of accidental injuries caused by defective products on the manufacturer who can treat it as a cost of production—rather than apportioning fault. The only defenses based on a plaintiff's conduct recognized in strict liability are voluntarily and knowingly assuming the risk of a known defect and unforeseeable misuse of the product; simple contributory negligence is not a defense.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
Yes. The general principles of comparative negligence should be applied to products liability cases based upon strict liability in tort. Strict products liability is inherently tied to negligence concepts, as the risk/utility analysis used to determine a 'defect' is functionally identical to the calculus of negligence. The decedent's conduct of ignoring clear warnings and placing himself in a position of obvious peril should be construed as an assumption of risk or, at minimum, fault to be compared against the product's defect. The majority's refusal to apply comparative principles creates an unfair, all-or-nothing standard that is inconsistent with the modern trend of the law and leads toward absolute liability for manufacturers.
Concurring - Wright, J.
No. While it may seem fair as a matter of policy to apply comparative negligence principles to strict liability claims, the court is bound by the clear statutory mandate of R.C. 2315.19. The statute unambiguously limits its application to 'negligence' actions, and strict liability is not a negligence action. The focus in a strict liability case is on the nature of the product, not the conduct of the manufacturer. Any extension of comparative negligence to strict liability actions must be accomplished by the Ohio General Assembly, not by judicial interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision firmly established a clear doctrinal separation between negligence and strict liability in Ohio tort law. By rejecting the application of comparative fault, the court reinforced the core policy of strict liability: to spread the risk of loss from defective products across society through the manufacturer, rather than apportioning fault between the parties. This holding placed Ohio in a minority of jurisdictions at the time, increasing liability exposure for manufacturers in the state by preventing them from reducing damages based on a plaintiff's carelessness. The decision ensures that unless a plaintiff knowingly assumes a specific risk or unforeseeably misuses a product, the manufacturer of a defective product bears the full financial responsibility for the resulting harm.
Unlock the full brief for Bowling v. Heil Co.