Case Updates
Ohio Supreme Court rejects proposed expansion of post-sale duty to warn
December 29, 2016
Favoring the defendant-appellant, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the proposed expansion of post-sale duty to warn.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
August 07, 2015
The U.S. Chamber, joined by several state and local business groups, asked the Ohio Supreme Court to clarify the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn consumers of risks after a product has been sold or marketed. The lower court held that, after a product has been sold, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers of the “risk” of “any known danger”—even if the danger is not serious and is unlikely to occur. The lower court also held that this duty is triggered when a manufacturer develops post-sale safety improvements to the product.
The Chamber’s amicus brief explained that the lower court’s decision is contrary to the weight of authority in American courts, and that the expanded duty to warn could discourage safety innovations because these innovations could expose companies to greater liability for existing products.
This brief was filed jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
Yvette McGee Brown, Chad A. Readler, and Kenneth M. Grose of Jones Day served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.