Temple v. Wean United, Inc.
364 N.E.2d 267, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 466, 50 Ohio St. 2d 317 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a product if the product is substantially altered by a third party after leaving the manufacturer's control, and this alteration is the sole proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Wean United, Inc. (Wean) manufactured a Warco power press equipped with a two-hand tripping device, a safety feature with activation buttons located at shoulder height.
- The press was eventually sold to Superior, the employer of plaintiff Mrs. Temple.
- Superior had a company policy that required all power press activation buttons to be located waist-high and 24 inches apart.
- Pursuant to this policy, Superior modified the press by lowering the activation buttons from shoulder height to waist height.
- The buttons, manufactured by Square D Company (Square D), were not equipped with available horseshoe-shaped guards, a fact known to Superior's engineer.
- Mrs. Temple was operating the modified press to stamp a long piece of stock.
- The long stock bridged the 24-inch gap between the lowered activation buttons, unintentionally activating the press.
- As a result of the unintentional activation, Mrs. Temple's hand was maimed by the press.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (appellants), Mrs. Temple and her husband, filed a products liability action in a trial court against Wean (manufacturer), G.M. (vendor), and Square D (component manufacturer).
- The defendants (appellees) filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs then appealed 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:
Does a manufacturer or seller bear strict liability for injuries caused by a product when the buyer makes a substantial alteration to the product's safety features after the sale, and that alteration is the sole cause of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Celebrezze, J.
No. A manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a product that has been substantially altered after leaving the seller's hands. The court formally adopts Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which imposes strict liability only if a product reaches the user 'without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.' Superior's modification of the press by lowering the activation buttons from shoulder height to waist height was a 'substantial change.' This alteration, combined with the use of long stock that could bridge the buttons, was the sole responsible cause of Mrs. Temple's injury. The press was not defective when it left the manufacturer, as its original two-hand tripping device was an acceptable safety guard under state industrial regulations. Furthermore, the component part manufacturer, Square D, had no duty to warn because it could not anticipate how its non-defective buttons would be integrated into a system by another party, and a warning would have been futile as Superior was already aware of available button guards.
Concurring - O'Neill, C. J.
The opinion concurs in the judgment but argues that the court's formal adoption and broad discussion of Section 402A was unnecessary. The dispositive fact is that the press had no original defect and that the employer's alteration was the 'sole responsible cause' of the injury. This finding alone is sufficient to absolve the defendants of liability, making the general discussion about the rules of strict liability in tort superfluous to the resolution of this specific case.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the standard for strict products liability in Ohio, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions. The decision clarifies and solidifies the 'substantial change' or 'alteration' defense, providing a clear limit on a manufacturer's liability. By holding that a subsequent modification that is the sole cause of injury absolves the original manufacturer, the court places responsibility on the party best positioned to control the product's final state and use, typically the employer in a workplace context. This precedent protects manufacturers from potentially limitless liability for post-sale alterations they cannot foresee or control.
Unlock the full brief for Temple v. Wean United, Inc.