Eldridge v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84AP-861,84AP-861
• Citation: 493 N.E.2d 293,24 Ohio App.3d 94,24 OBR 164
• Parties: , 24 O.B.R. 164 ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee, et al.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 94

24 Ohio App.3d 94

493 N.E.2d 293, 24 O.B.R. 164

ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee, et al.

No. 84AP-861.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

May 7, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The determination to be made by a trial court when a motion for directed verdict has been made is not whether one version of the facts presented is more persuasive than another; rather, it is a determination that only one result could be reached under the theories of law presented in the complaint.

2. The issue in a case of strict liability in tort for an alleged defective design in a consumer product is to be determined by the test set forth in Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 460, 432 N.E.2d 814 , which is as follows: "A product design is in a defective condition if it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner or if the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk inherent in such design."

Michael F. Colley Co., L.P.A., Michael F. Colley, Dana A. Deshler, Jr., and Michael R. Thomas, Columbus, for appellant.

Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt, David J. Richards, William J. Burns, Jr., and John J. Buchan, Columbus, for appellee.

MOYER, Judge.

This matter is before us on plaintiff's appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict rendered by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff, Eddie L. Eldridge, sued defendants for injuries he received when a push-type, rotary-power mower he was using backed over his left foot, resulting in the amputation of portions of several of his toes. Plaintiff was using a lawn mower of a friend who had purchased the mower from defendant, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. He was pulling the mower backwards and tripped over a stump, thereby causing him to lose his balance and pull the mower over his left foot. The mower did not have a blade guard or any other guard on the back of the mower to prevent an injury such as the injury plaintiff suffered.

Plaintiff's suit for recovery was based upon a theory of strict liability in tort for the defective design of the lawn mower. Plaintiff conceded that defendant's mower met the industry standard in effect in 1968 when the mower was manufactured. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Buchele, testified that in 1968 two types of guards were available to lawn mower manufacturers. They were the trailing guard and the blade guard. The trailing guard is a piece of steel or heavy plastic which is hinged at the rear of the lawn mower deck and is designed to prevent an operator's feet from coming in contact with the blade through the space created at the rear of the lawn mower between the deck and the ground. The blade guard is designed like a grill to fit over the blade and permits the grass, but not hands or feet, to come in contact with the blade.

Dr. Buchele also testified that in 1968 Toro Manufacturing had installed a trailing guard on its lawn mowers, and that in 1972 the industry standard was changed to require trailing guards on all lawn mowers. He also testified that, during the 1960s, there were approximately sixty thousand injuries per year resulting from contact with rotary mower blades and that such injuries are usually extraordinarily severe because of the damage inflicted by the blade upon skin, muscle, tissue, blood vessels, nerves and bones.

Dr. Buchele also testified regarding the availability to defendant of blade guards and trailing guards. He referred to exhibits indicating that patents had been issued for a number of such devices during the years preceding 1968; that placing blade or rear guards on lawn mowers was economically feasible; that the hazards of unguarded rotary-blade mowers, the severity of the injury they could inflict, and the technological feasibility of constructing mowers with guards were all known in 1968; that defendant's mower was a defective mower when it was manufactured; that it was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect; that it embodied excessive preventable dangers for which there were feasible alternatives; and that defendant's lawn mower was not a state-of-the-art machine in 1968.

Following presentation of plaintiff's case, the trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff asserts the following two assignments of error in support of his appeal:

"I. It is reversible error for a trial court to weigh the credibility of an expert witness and grant a defendant's motion for directed verdict in a products liability design defect action, where plaintiff has established through such expert testimony that the likelihood and severity of product injury is high and that safer designs were mechanically and economically feasible.

"II. Evidence that a defendant seller's product was consistent in design with industry custom at the time of its manufacture does not establish that it is 'state of the art' and does not preclude its liability as a matter of law."

The assignments of error are interrelated and are considered together.

Civ.R. 50(A)(4) governs directed verdicts and provides:

"When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue."

The determination to be made by a trial court when a motion for directed verdict has been made is not whether one version of the facts presented is more persuasive than another; rather, it is a determination that only one result could be reached under the theories of law presented in the complaint. When a motion for directed verdict is entered, it is the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury that is being tested. The trial court may not weigh the evidence or try the credibility of witnesses, but must give to the party opposing the motion the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence. The "reasonable minds" test of Civ.R. 50(A)(4) requires the court only to determine whether there is any evidence of substantial probative value in support of the non-moving party's claim. A motion for a directed verdict raises a question of law because it examines the materiality of the evidence rather than the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. See Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 66, 430 N.E.2d 935 .

We next consider whether the trial court properly considered defendant's motion for a directed...