noting that comment j to section 402A of the Restatement provides that a warning or directions as to the use of a product may prevent it from being unreasonably dangerous
How later courts described this case
- noting that comment j to section 402A of the Restatement provides that a warning or directions as to the use of a product may prevent it from being unreasonably dangerous
- the admission of television commercials was highly relevant to the formulation of consumers' expectations of safety and intended use
- rejecting argument that negligence and strict liability were equivalent theories of recovery in design defect action
- '[t]he absence of a warning does not, without more, provide a basis for [strict] liability; rather, evidence of warning is in the nature of an affirmative defense to a claim that a product is unreasonably dangerous.'
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 61 Ohio St. 3d 470 (1991)
Accordingly, Leichtamer is distinguishable on two grounds.
The opinion
Locher, J.,
concurs in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus and in the judgment in relation thereto, but dissents from paragraph three of the syllabus and from the judgment relating thereto.
P. Brown and Holmes, JJ., dissent.