Ohio replaced its common law of products with a statute. Sections 2307.71 to 2307.80 define the claim, list the theories that exist, name who counts as a manufacturer or supplier, and abolish everything outside that scheme. The words in those definitions do most of the work.
Call (513) 796-9335No obligation · Written for Cincinnati · Hamilton County
Six boxes, about thirty seconds. You pick when to be called back, and that is when the phone rings.
Or call (513) 796-9335Section 2307.71(B) states that sections 2307.71 to 2307.80 are intended to abrogate all common law product liability claims or causes of action. A products case in Ohio is therefore a statutory case, and the analysis begins with defined terms rather than with general negligence principles.
Two of those terms decide what can be recovered. Under division (A)(7), "harm" means death, physical injury to person, serious emotional distress, or physical damage to property other than the product in question, and economic loss is not harm. Under division (A)(2), "economic loss" means direct, incidental or consequential pecuniary loss, including damage to the product itself and nonphysical damage to other property, and harm is not economic loss. A machine that destroys only itself produces economic loss, which is contract territory; a machine that injures its operator produces harm.
Division (A)(6) defines "foreseeable risk" as a risk associated with an intended or reasonably foreseeable use, modification or alteration, which the manufacturer should recognize while exercising the attention, perception, memory, knowledge and intelligence a reasonable manufacturer should possess, plus any superior knowledge that particular manufacturer has.
Section 2307.73(A) requires a claimant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in manufacture or construction under section 2307.74, defective in design or formulation under section 2307.75, defective due to inadequate warning or instruction under section 2307.76, or defective because it did not conform to a representation under section 2307.77; that the defect was a proximate cause of harm; and that the defendant designed, formulated, produced, constructed, created, assembled or rebuilt the actual product that caused the harm.
That last element rules out shortcuts. Division (C) states that proof a manufacturer made the type of product in question is not proof it made the actual defective product, and that a manufacturer may not be held liable in a product liability action based on market share, enterprise, or industrywide liability. Division (B) does soften the proof problem where the product itself is gone: a claimant may present circumstantial or other competent evidence to establish an inference that the product was defective and that the defect proximately caused the harm.
Section 2307.74 provides that a product is defective in manufacture or construction if, when it left the control of its manufacturer, it deviated in a material way from the design specifications, formula or performance standards of the manufacturer, or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same design specifications, formula or performance standards. The section adds that a product may be defective in manufacture or construction even though its manufacturer exercised all possible care.
The comparison is internal. The question is not whether a better product could exist, but whether this unit matched what the manufacturer intended to build.
Section 2307.75(A) makes a product defective in design or formulation if, when it left the manufacturer's control, the foreseeable risks associated with its design exceeded the benefits. Division (B) lists risk factors: the nature and magnitude of the risks in light of intended and reasonably foreseeable uses, modifications or alterations; the likely awareness of users of those risks; the likelihood the design would cause harm; the extent to which the design conformed to an applicable public or private product standard in effect when the product left the manufacturer's control; and the extent to which the design is more dangerous than a reasonably prudent consumer would expect. Division (C) lists benefit factors, including the product's intended or actual utility, the technical and economic feasibility of an alternative design when the product left the manufacturer's control, and the risks of that alternative.
Three defenses live in the same section. Division (D) protects an ethical drug or ethical medical device whose unavoidably unsafe aspect is adequately warned about. Division (E) excludes harm caused by an inherent characteristic that is a generic aspect of the product, cannot be eliminated without substantially compromising usefulness or desirability, and is recognized by the ordinary person with ordinary knowledge common to the community. Division (F) excludes a design claim where no practical and technically feasible alternative design was available.
Section 2307.78(A) makes a supplier subject to liability where the claimant establishes that the supplier was negligent and that negligence proximately caused harm, or that the product did not conform when it left the supplier's control to a representation the supplier made. Division (B) then treats a supplier as the manufacturer in listed situations, including where the manufacturer is not subject to judicial process in this state, where a judgment against the manufacturer would be unenforceable because of actual or asserted insolvency, where the supplier owns or is owned by the manufacturer in whole or in part, where the supplier created or furnished the design, where the supplier altered or modified the product and the alteration caused the harm, where the supplier marketed the product under its own label or trade name, or where the supplier failed to respond timely and reasonably to a written request for the manufacturer's name and address.
That last item is worth acting on early, in writing.
Section 2307.80(A) bars punitive or exemplary damages against a manufacturer or supplier unless the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the harm resulted from misconduct manifesting a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons who might be harmed, and states expressly that the fact a product is defective does not by itself establish flagrant disregard. Division (B) assigns the amount to the court rather than the jury, listing factors including the profitability of the misconduct, the duration of it and any concealment, and the manufacturer's conduct on discovery. Division (C) shields a drug or device manufacturer from punitive damages where the product was manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects in accordance with a federal Food and Drug Administration approval or license, subject to stated exceptions.
This page is general information about Ohio's product liability statutes and does not constitute legal advice. A specific product, defect theory and deadline should be reviewed by an attorney licensed in Ohio.
Product Liability Claims in Cincinnati. Call (513) 796-9335 and a Cincinnati lawyer reviews the claim and the deadline that applies. Nothing is signed on that call.
Call (513) 796-9335The Hamilton County Coroner's office states that an autopsy report takes eight to twelve weeks to complete, that copies are free to the primary next-of-kin and twenty-five cents per page for all others, and that a request needs the name of the deceased and the date of death.
Why it matters: Cause-of-death findings often arrive months after an insurer has asked for a statement, so preservation of a vehicle, product or scene cannot wait for the report.
Source: hamiltoncoroner.com
Local Rule 9 of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, effective October 1, 2025, sets a security deposit of $325.00 for a civil action, $270.00 for a jury demand, $85.00 for a notice of appeal and $75.00 for third-party, counter, cross or intervening complaints, with additional security up to $1,000.00 when a deposit falls to $25.00 or less.
Why it matters: Adding a party to shift a fault percentage is a priced, docketed step here, not just an argument.
Source: hamiltoncountycourts.org
Ohio Revised Code section 2305.10 generally requires a bodily-injury or product-liability action to be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues; the statute also contains different accrual rules and product-liability provisions.
Why it matters: The incident date, discovery facts and claim type need to be identified at the outset. A general two-year rule does not resolve every Cincinnati injury question.
Sources: codes.ohio.gov · codes.ohio.gov
No obligation · Written for Cincinnati · Hamilton County