|
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
(Ohio Supreme Court)
Nuisance and negligent marketing suit
On 4/11/01, the NAM and the Ohio Manufacturers' Association filed a joint brief supporting the lower court's rejection of Cincinnati's claims for solely economic losses from gun use. Among other things, the NAM argued that economic losses are not covered by product-liability, implied-warranty or common-law strict liability law. In a significant setback for manufacturers on 6/12/02, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that this complaint could go forward on theories of (1) public nuisance that the design, manufacturing, marketing, or sale of the product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the public, (2) negligence arising from the manufacturer’s duty to take steps to prevent foreseeable harm to the public, and (3) common law product liability for negligent design and failure-to-warn (but not statutory product liability, which requires physical rather than simply economic injury). The court also rejected a Commerce Clause argument.
|