(DOWNLOAD) "Bailey V. V & O Press Co." by United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bailey V. V & O Press Co.
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
- Release Date : January 16, 1985
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
Plaintiff-Appellant, George Bailey (Bailey), seeks reversal of a judgment entered by the district court upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee on the issue of strict liability in tort in this diversity action in which Bailey also alleged breach of warranty and negligence Bailey asserts that the district court erred in refusing to apply Ohio's comparative negligence statute, Ohio Revised Code § 2315.19, which on its face is limited to negligence actions, to this case, which was submitted to the jury only Bailey's strict tort liability claim. We affirm the district court's refusal to extend the application of O.R.C. § 2315.19 to actions based on strict tort liability. Bailey also contends that the district court erred in instructing the jury on Bailey's assumption of risk and in refusing to instruct that the defendant could be held strictly liable for failing to comply with industry standards. We find no error in the district court's instructions on these matters. Finally, Bailey asserts that the district court improperly admitted testimony regarding safety standards set forth in the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the Ohio Industrial Code, and standards of the American National Safety Institute (ANSI). In addition, Bailey challenges the court's refusal to instruct the jury that the weight afforded such testimony should be limited in light of the court's ultimate refusal to admit these standards into evidence. While we decline to hold that the initial admission of these standards, offered to demonstrate industry standards with respect to Bailey's strict liability claim, once the evidence of negligence was withdrawn, was prejudicial, consistent with our recent opinion in Minichello v. U.S. Industries, 756 F.2d 26 (6th Cir. 1985). We therefore reverse and remand this case for proceedings consistent with the reasoning set forth below.