Ohio Supreme Court Ends Market-Share Liability Case
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 21:03 CDT
COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Supreme Court of Ohio today let stand a decision that refused to allow plaintiffs to sue former manufacturers of lead pigment or their alleged successors without identifying who made the lead pigment in their homes. The lower court decision in Jackson v. Glidden had rejected a claim of market-share liability against the defendants.
The Ohio Supreme Court's action comes after two other state's highest courts, Missouri and New Jersey, rejected lawsuits last week filed under another theory, public nuisance, against the defendants.
"For nearly two decades of litigation, plaintiffs have moved from legal theory to legal theory, and venue to venue, in an attempt to place the responsibility for poorly maintained properties on the former manufacturers of lead paint," said Bonnie J. Campbell, former Attorney General of Iowa and spokesperson for defendants.
"The market share theory is an attempt to evade the most basic requirements of a product liability suit -- that the plaintiff show who made the product that allegedly caused harm," Campbell said.
The Ohio Supreme Court's action ended a case filed in 1992 on behalf of eight individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought the case under the theory of market share liability, which seeks to relieve plaintiffs of the obligation to prove that the defendant's product caused the plaintiff's alleged harm. The theory instead seeks to hold manufacturers of the type of product alleged to have caused harm liable for a percentage of the plaintiff's damages equal to the defendant's claimed share of the relevant market at the relevant time.
On January 25, 2007, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants. In its decision, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District in the County of Cuyahoga, relied on a 1998 Ohio Supreme Court ruling that said: "In Ohio market-share liability is not an available theory of recovery in a products liability action."
On March 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision. The Ohio Supreme Court today declined to review the lower court decision, effectively ending this case.
Contact: Prism Public Affairs
Mike Tetuan -- 202-207-3638
Atlantic Richfield Company, Millennium Holdings, LLC, NL Industries,
CONTACT: Mike Tetuan, +1-202-207-3638, for Atlantic Richfield Company,Millennium Holdings, LLC, NL Industries, Inc. and The Sherwin WilliamsCompany
Source: PRNewswire-USNewswire
Related Articles
- Court delays cable TV copying decision
- The Inventure Group, Inc.: BURGER KING Snack Test Market and Share Repurchase Plan Updates
- The Report, 'CDN 2006 - 2007: Market Size, Share, Metrics and Analytics' Includes Gigabytes Transferred and 95th Percentile Analysis Modeling for Retail Contracts Delivered By CDNs
- SEO Meetup Group Launches in Baltimore/DC Region to Enable Internet Marketers to Share Search Engine Optimization Tips and Ideas
- Court to Review Alzheimer's Drugs Decision
- Montana Official Takes PPL to Court: He Seeks Reversal of Decision Giving Fed Control of Plants.
- MSHA Applauds Court Decision Granting Injunction; MSHA Defends UMWA Rights As Miners' Representative in Sago Investigation
- Court Weighs Juries' Death Penalty Decisions
- Court Ruling Prompts AT&T to Halt Marketing of Phone Service in Seven States
- Court Overturns FCC Cable Modem Decision
 |
 |
User Comments (0)
RSS Feeds