Gwyn Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | 81-LW-3816,80-CA-34 |
| Parties | GWYN GOODSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. McDONOUGH POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. Defendant-Appellant CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
ALFRED J. WEISBROD, 9 West Water Street, Troy, Ohio 45373 Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
THOMAS L. CZECHOWSKI and WILLIAM P. SMITH of ESTABROOK, FINN & McKEE, 2100 First National Bank Building, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Complaint seeking damages for personal injury to Gwyn Goodson, a minor. Suit was filed on April 14, 1977 by Gwyn and her parents, Raymond L. Goodson and Debra T. Goodson. The Complaint, setting forth every conceivable product liability allegation, alleges that Defendant-Appellant, McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. (hereinafter "McDonough") manufactured the product (a Snapper Comet 30-inch riding power lawn mower) which caused the injury to Gwyn Goodson. Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action is of particular significance, asserting a claim not heretofore recognized by an Ohio court to wit negligence in the design of a product which merely enhances as distinct from proximately causing, an injury. The design defect alleged was the lack of a safety shield or guard under the lawn mower involved.
On July 12, 1978, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the enhancement of injury issue, claiming that liability on that issue had already been established by the case of Harrison v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 926 (S.D. Fla. 1974) () and that, because of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, McDonough was precluded from re-litigating that issue in this case. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs herein were strangers to the Florida case and that Florida law would not have permitted Plaintiffs herein to use the prior judgment in Florida, the trial court sustained Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on August 23, 1978.
McDonough immediately appealed from that judgment. This court, however, dismissed that appeal based on the lack of a final appealable order.
On March 17, 1980, a trial was held before a jury only on the damage issues of this case, the liability of McDonough having already been determined by the trial court in the Judgment Entry of September 7, 1978. The jury subsequently awarded Plaintiffs $355,000. On April 4, 1980, a Judgment was entered to that effect.
This matter is presently before this Court upon McDonough's Notice of Appeal from that judgment and the judgment of September 7, 1978.
In July, 1972, McDonough manufactured a 30-inch Snapper Comet riding power lawn mower, one of many manufactured during that period of time. This lawn mower, during its way through the normal distribution chain, was purchased by Hayes Crapo sometime in the late summer or early fall of 1972. Mr. Crapo, and his wife, Esther, lived next door to the Plaintiffs in Troy, Ohio. After his purchase of the lawn mower, Hayes Crapo sold a part interest therein to Plaintiff, Raymond Goodson, and the lawn mower thereafter was used extensively and without mishap to mow the lawns of both the Crapos and the Goodsons.
At the time of his purchase, Mr. Crapo received an Operator's Manual which, in addition to describing maintenance and service procedures, contained an extensive list of safety precautions. These precautions included: "Keep hands and feet clear of the cutter unit at all times," "Never allow children to operate the Snapper Comet," "Instruct individuals to stay away from the mower while it is in operation," "Do not let others ride with you on the mower," and "Give complete and undivided attention to the job at hand." (Deposition of Hayes Crapo and Exhibit thereto).
On April 15, 1973, while Esther Crapo was using the lawn mower to mow her front lawn, she was approached by Plaintiff, Gwyn Goodson, then four years old, and Gwyn's older sister, Teryle, then six years old. The Goodson children asked Mrs. Crapo to give them a ride on the lawn mower. Mrs. Crapo, in disregard of the safety precautions contained in the Operator's Manual, agreed to do so.
Gwyn Goodson was the first to receive her ride. When she stepped off the lawn mower, Teryle mounted the right side of the machine. During her ride, Teryle was half standing and half sitting on the lawn mower with Mrs. Crapo's right arm around her, and Gwyn was running along the left side of the power mower. Suddenly Gwyn slipped on the wet grass. Her left foot went under the left side of the lawn mower. (See Deposition of Esther Crapo). Gwyn received a severe injury which later required amputation of her left foot.
Plaintiffs instituted this action on April 14, 1977, against McDonough and the retailer who allegedly had sold the lawn mower to Hayes Crapo. The retailer, however, was dismissed when it was learned that Plaintiffs had sued the wrong retailer.
Plaintiffs' Complaint contains a total of nine causes of action, asserting, inter alia, negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action attempts to impose upon McDonough liability for a defect in design which enhanced or aggravated, as contrasted with proximately caused, the injury to Gwyn Goodson.
McDonough instituted a third-party action against Hayes and Esther Crapo on August 4, 1977. This Third-Party Complaint was dismissed by the trial court without elaboration.
On July 12, 1978, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of "enhanced injury" contained in their Sixth Cause of Action. As Plaintiffs' motion had been filed after the deadline established by the Court and without the further leave of court required by Ohio Civil Rule 56, McDonough filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on July 17, 1978. McDonough's Motion to Strike was subsequently overruled, and McDonough was granted leave to file its own Motion for Summary Judgment.
McDonough filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the identical issue involved in Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. After a hearing on both motions, the trial court overruled McDonough's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and sustained Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. A Judgment Entry, prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel and not approved by counsel for McDonough, was filed on September 7, 1978, and ordered:
...that the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of negligent design which proximately caused aggrevation (sic) of Plaintiff's injuries in the Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action is well taken and the same is, therefore, sustained, the Court expressly determining that there is no just reason for delay in hearing an appeal upon this entry of final judgment on this issue.
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs referred the trial court to the case of Harrison v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 926 (S.D. Fla. 1974), a decision overruling a defense motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A reading of that case appears to indicate that the jury concluded that McDonough, a defendant therein, was guilty of negligence which aggravated the plaintiff's injury because of a lack of a shield or guard underneath the lawn mower involved in that particular accident. Plaintiffs herein merely cited the Harrison case to the court, making no attempt to introduce any other evidence pertaining to, or consisting of, the record of that case. Plaintiffs argued that because of the jury verdict against McDonough in the Harrison case, collateral estoppel should be applied to prohibit McDonough from defending the "enhanced" injury claim contained within Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action in this case, notwithstanding that Plaintiffs were not parties to the Harrison case.
In response to Plaintiffs' Motion, McDonough pointed out that the machine involved in the Harrison case, identified only as a "riding-type rotary mower," was manufactured in 1963. The lawn mower involved herein was manufactured in 1972. The two suits involved two separate accidents; two separate plaintiffs; and two separate sets of circumstances. Additionally, McDonough argued that the imposition of liability on McDonough herein by means of collateral estoppel would work a manifest injustice: the comparative negligence system in effect in Florida resulted in a substantial reduction of the verdict against McDonough in the Harrison case, and, thus, militated against an appeal; McDonough had no way of knowing at the time that the verdict in the Harrison case would ever be given collateral effect years later and a thousand miles away; and Plaintiffs, as total strangers to the Harrison case, should not be permitted to use the prior judgment affirmatively to impose liability on McDonough in this case.
Thus, two principal issues are presented by the trial court's order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) the offensive use of collateral estoppel by a "stranger" to the prior suit, and (2) the applicability and parameters of the "enhanced" injury doctrine in Ohio.
Subsequent to the granting of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, McDonough filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the trial court to reconsider its decision. This Motion was denied by the trial court.
Shortly thereafter, McDonough again sought to bring the trial court's attention to the magnitude of the harm perpetrated by granting a summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. This was done through a Motion to Vacate Judgment based upon a denial of due process and failure to apply the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. This motion also was denied by the trial court.
Sometime later, McDonough for the third...
To continue reading
Request your trial