C.A. Case No. 15748


114 Ohio App. 3d 116; 682 N.E.2d 1052; 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4051

September 20, 1996, Rendered

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant lessee’s employee sought review of an order by the trial court which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee financial lessor relative to claims of negligence and product liability. The trial court had determined that appellee was not subject to product liability as defined under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §  2307.71. Breach of warranty claims were not appropriate and appellee owed no duty of care to appellant.

OVERVIEW: Appellee financial lessor entered into a lease agreement so that appellant lessee could purchase a flocking machine. During the lease period the flocking machine exploded and appellant’s employee was injured. Subsequently, appellant filed claims against appellee based on negligence and product liability claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to appellee on the negligence and product liability claims. Appellant contended that appellee should be held responsible as a supplier for product liability claims as defined in Ohio Rev. Code Ann §  23017.71. The court affirmed summary judgment holding that (1) appellee was not a supplier for purposes of product liability because selection, possession, and operation of the product were controlled by appellant’s employer, (2) the application of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §  2307.78 was moot as appellee was not a supplier, and (3) appellee did not owe appellant a duty because appellee was not responsible for placing the flocking machine into the stream of commerce. The court further found that implied warranty claims did not give rise to liability in this case and the lease agreement waived any expressed warranties.

OUTCOME: Trial court’s entry of summary judgment was affirmed. The court overruled appellant lessee’s employee’s assignment of errors as to its claim for product liability and negligence because appellee financial lessor was not a supplier and owed no duty to appellant. As appellee was not a supplier, appellant’s other claim was moot.