In Meta v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16810 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2015), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted, in part, Defendants Target Corporation's and Nice-Pak Products, Inc.'s motions to dismiss plaintiff's common law product liability claims, finding they were abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act ("OPLA").
Lead Plaintiff in the putative class action bought Up & Up® brand pre-moistened wipes from Target to potty train his daughter because they were marketed as "flushable" and "sewer and septic safe." Plaintiff alleged the wipes clogged his sewer lines and caused other plumbing problems. He sought to recover the difference between the value of the wipes as advertised and the allegedly defective, non-flushable wipes received. He alleged both common law product defect claims for breach of warranty, negligent design and failure to warn, as well as statutory product claims under the OPLA. The Court dismissed the common law product claims as abrogated by the OPLA.
In its ruling, the Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that those common law claims were saved by a narrow exception to the OPLA's abrogation rule created by the Northern District of Ohio Court. The exception provides that a "consumer who is not in privity with a manufacturer may state a claim under Ohio common law product claims seeking 'economic damages' based on damages to the product in question." Id. at *8. The Court reasoned that the alleged defects did not cause damage to the wipes themselves, but to other property - the septic system.
In finding the exception did not apply, the Court criticized the Northern District's OPLA exception as not well founded under Ohio law. Specifically, the Court explained: "This exception has not been adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Sixth Circuit apparently has never held that any such exception to the OPLA exists. This Court is not bound by the decisions creating this exception." Id. at *7-8, fn. 5. It further critiqued the exception, stating that its creation in Huffman v. Electrolux N. America, 961 F. Supp. 2d 875, 881 (N.D. Ohio 2013), was premised on Ohio Supreme Court precedent that pre-dated the 2005 OPLA amendment abrogating such common law product claims.. While the Court's ruling does not eliminate the exception, it calls it into question and suggests it strays from Ohio law.
In defending product liability claims in Ohio, manufacturers should be mindful of exactly what claims a plaintiff may pursue under Ohio law.
The use of common law product liability claims to pursue economic losses, particularly in cases where the damages are highly questionable, has been a boon to plaintiffs and a headache for manufacturers in Ohio. Perhaps Meta v. Target Corp. will be the catalyst to revisit the Northern District of Ohio's narrow OPLA abrogation exception and close the opening for common law product claims created by Huffman and In re Whirlpool Front Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig. For more information, please contact a member of the Frantz Ward Litigation Group.