Lee v. Wright Tool & Forge Co.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1975 |
| Citation | 48 Ohio App.2d 148,356 N.E.2d 303 |
| Parties | , 2 O.O.3d 115, 20 UCC Rep.Serv. 645 LEE, Appellee, v. WRIGHT TOOL & FORGE COMPANY, Appellant. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an action where the operative facts occurred in another state, Ohio law applies to determine procedural and remedial matters. Ohio law determines whether an action sounds in contract or tort and which statute of limitations is applicable.
2. In a products liability case in Ohio where the action is based upon the tortious breach of duty assumed by the manufacturer-seller of a product (i. e., implied warranty), a two year statute of limitations is applicable.
3. In order to apply the four year statute of limitations contained in R.C. 1302.98 to an action seeking recovery on an implied warranty theory, the plaintiff must be able to show privity of contract. The failure to make such a showing makes the action one sounding in tort, which is governed by the two year statute of limitations.
William B. Hewitt, Akron, for appellee.
Timothy F. Scanlon, Akron, for appellant.
This action for damages for personal injuries arises out of an industrial accident occurring on December 2, 1969, at Fort Rucker, Alabama. The plaintiff, Robert E. Lee, a resident of Alabama, was injured when he fell from a grounded helicopter upon which he was performing maintenance work at the instance of his employer, under contract with the United States government. He claimed that his fall to the ground was caused by the failure of a tool he was using, manufactured by the defendant, The Wright Tool & Forge, Inc., an Ohio corporation. This corporation had sold the tool to the United States government, which, in turn, had furnished the tool to the plaintiff for his use on the government's helicopter.
The record shows that on November 30, 1970, the plaintiff filed suit in Alabama against the manufacturer, Wright. This suit, and subsequent suits filed in Alabama, asking damages for his injuries, were dismissed by the Alabama courts on jurisdictional grounds. Following the Alabama decisions, the plaintiff, on July 19, 1972, filed the instant action against Wright, in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Ohio, and obtained proper service of summons.
When the suit was filed in Ohio, the defendant, Wright, moved the trial court for a dismissal of the action on the ground that the action was not timely filed in Ohio. Wright claimed that the action was in tort for the breach of an implied warranty and, consequently, was controlled by R.C. 2305.10, a two year statute of limitation. Under this statute, it was claimed that the time for filing the action in Ohio had expired on December 2, 1971, more than seven months before the Ohio suit was commenced.
The Court of Common Pleas overruled this motion and the case proceeded to trial on April 23, 1974. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case and, also, at the conclusion of the defendant's case, the court overruled motions for judgment for the defendant. The case was submitted to the impaneled jury, which returned its verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. A judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the defendant, Wright, has appealed to this court from the judgment on the verdict and from the court's judgment overruling the defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Specifically, the assignments of error upon which the manufacturer, Wright, seeks a reversal of the judgment are:
'1. The lower court erred in overruling defendant's motion to dismiss filed herein on September 21, 1972.
The question raised by this appeal is whether such an action, brought in Ohio to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in Alabama and arising out of the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, is governed by the Ohio two year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.10), or by the four year statute of the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code (R.C. 1302.98).
The parties agree that: (1) in such a situation the Ohio courts will apply the substantive law of Alabama to determine the rights and duties of the parties; and (2) in the trial of the case in Ohio, the Ohio courts will apply Ohio law to determine procedural and remedial matters, including the statute of limitations. Collins v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171; Freas v. Sullivan, 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639; 9 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 822, Conflict of Laws, Section 108.
The troublesome problem here is whether questions relating to privity of contract are matters of substance or procedure. Lee contends they are substantive; Wright believes they are remedial.
Both Alabama and Ohio have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Each provides that a manufacturer-seller of goods impliedly warrants that the article it sells is of merchantable quality and fit for the uses intended. Ohio extends these warranties to the purchaser, members of his household and guests therein (R.C. 1302.98). Alabama extends these implied warranties 'to any natural person if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by the breach of the warranty.' Ala. Code (Recomp.) Title 7A, Section 2-318.
Lee says that under Alabama law, Wright's warranties extend to him. Therefore, as a statutory third party beneficiary of the contract between Wright and the government, his cause of action, as determined by Alabama law, is one in contract and he is entitled to the benefit of Ohio's four year statute of limitations.
If we accept Lee's view that matters pertaining to privity of contract are substantive rahter than procedural, a reading of the statutes referred to tends to support his contention that his cause of action is one sounding in contract. We must determine,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
...may pursue a cause of action ... in contract where there is privity between plaintiff and defendant." Lee v. Wright Tool & Forge Co., 48 Ohio App.2d 148, 356 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1975); see also Mahalsky v. Salem Tool Co., 461 F.2d 581, 584 (6th Cir.1972) ("Ohio has no remedy for and does not r......
-
In re Revco DS, Inc.
...(Ohio Ct.App. Aug. 21, 1987) (1987 WL 15918). This is true regardless of where the cause of action arose. Lee v. Wright Tool & Forge Co., 48 Ohio App.2d 148, 356 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1975). Based on the fact that these matters are pending in Ohio, the Examiner believes that a court would apply ......
-
Shewbrooks v. A.C. and S., Inc., 56014
...F.Supp. 1307 (D.Nev.1982). Ohio Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 624 F.2d 726, 729 (5th Cir.1980). Lee v. Wright Tool & Forge Co., 48 Ohio App.2d 148, 356 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1975). Oklahoma Mitchell v. Cloyes, 620 P.2d 398, 403 Bulkin v. Western Kraft East, Inc., 422 F.Supp. 437, 441 (......
-
Westfield Ins. Co. v. HULS Am., Inc.
...of action accrues. Lawyer's Cooperative, 65 Ohio St.3d at 277, 603 N.E.2d at 972-973. See, also, Lee v. Wright Tool & Forge Co. (1975), 48 Ohio App.2d 148, 2 O.O.3d 115, 356 N.E.2d 303; Venham v. Astrolite Alloys (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 90, 596 N.E.2d Courts have held, for the purposes of th......