TLT-Babcock, Inc. v. Service Bolt & Nut Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1984
• Docket Number: INC,TLT-BABCOC
• Citation: 474 N.E.2d 1223,16 OBR 149,16 Ohio App.3d 142
• Parties: , 16 O.B.R. 149 , Appellant, v. SERVICE BOLT & NUT CO. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 142

16 Ohio App.3d 142

474 N.E.2d 1223, 16 O.B.R. 149

TLT-BABCOCK, INC., Appellant, v. SERVICE BOLT & NUT CO. et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Medina County.

April 18, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

If all the evidence relating to an essential issue is sufficient to permit only a conclusion by reasonable minds against a party, after construing the evidence most favorably to that party, it is the duty of the trial court to instruct a finding or direct a verdict on that issue against that party.

John W. Solomon and David F. Raynor, Akron, for appellant.

Andrew P. Buckner, Cleveland, for appellee Service Bolt & Nut Co.

Joseph W. Gibson, Akron, for appellee Hendershot & Smith, Inc.

James F. Sweeney, Cleveland, for appellee Brown Machine Co.

John M. Cronquist and Philip J. Weaver, Jr., Cleveland, for appellee Brown Machine Tool Repair Co.

GEORGE, Judge.

This action was commenced by plaintiff-appellant, TLT-Babcock ("TLT"), asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, strict liability and indemnification. Defendant-appellee Service Bolt & Nut Company ("Service Bolt") manufactured the bolts used by TLT in its manufacture of industrial fans. TLT assembled the fans and sold them to Pennsylvania Electric Company ("Penelec") to be used in its Homer City generating plant. In November 1979, a failure occurred in one of the Penelec fans when a rotor lost six blades which resulted in extensive damage. TLT repaired the damage and sought reimbursement from Service Bolt under an express warranty clause.

TLT alleged that there were defects in the manufacturing which caused the heads to become separated from the rest of the bolt. TLT also filed a claim against defendants-appellees, Brown Machine Company and Hendershot & Smith, Inc., which were involved in the manufacturing process of the bolts. Both parties were dismissed prior to trial.

Assignments of Error

"1. The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee's motion for directed verdict as reasonable minds can come to differing conclusions as to whether defendant-appellee had an obligation to indemnify plaintiff-appellant for damages incurred as a result of a defect in bolts supplied by defendant-appellee.

"2. The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee's motion for directed verdict as reasonable minds can come to differing conclusions as to whether defendant-appellee seller had breached an express warranty to plaintiff-appellant buyer."

TLT's assignments of error challenge the propriety of the trial court's order directing a verdict in favor of Service Bolt. Civ.R. 50(A) provides:

"(A) Motion for directed verdict.

" * * *

"(4) When granted on the evidence. 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 standard to be used when a motion for a directed verdict is made has been set forth in O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215, at 220, 280 N.E.2d 896.

" * * * if all the evidence relating to an essential issue is sufficient to permit only a conclusion by reasonable minds against a party, after construing the evidence most favorably to that party, it is the duty of the trial court to instruct a finding or direct a verdict on that issue against that party. * * * "

In the instant case the trial court determined there was a failure of proof by TLT as to all of its claims. This court notes that the trial court must not consider...