# Titanium Industries v. S.E.A., Inc.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · January 29, 1997 · 118 Ohio App. 3d 39

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751425

## Case

- **Full name:** TITANIUM INDUSTRIES, Appellee, v. S.E.A., INC., Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 29, 1997
- **Citations:** 118 Ohio App. 3d 39; 691 N.E.2d 1087; 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 339
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cox
- **Judges:** Donofrio, O'Neill, Cox
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751425

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that Ohio rejects inferences based solely upon inferences

## Opinion text

Cox, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The appellant even admitted that the representations and the information that it provided to the appellee was erroneous. The appellant held itself out as an expert and the evidence demonstrated that it failed to adhere to the standards of the industry or the standards of ordinary care. The jury decided that the appellee had justifiably relied on the information supplied by the appellant, which
*53
was its prerogative. They further found that the appellee had relied on these representations made by the appellant and was damaged.
As to the evidentiary matters, the one record was a public record and the court was correct in admitting it into evidence. As to the expert, the hypothetical was flawed and the court was again correct in excluding it.
I see no reason to reverse the trial court on evidentiary issues nor the jury on its finding. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3751425. Public record. Not legal advice.