Davenport v. M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Davenport, Appellant, v. M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc.,
Appellee.
[Cite as Davenport v. M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. (1994),
Ohio St.3d .]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
(No. 93-1749 -- Submitted October 25, 1994 -- Decided
December 7, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.
C-920142.

Kircher, Robinson, Cook, Newman & Welch and Robert B.
Newman, for appellant.
Clark, Ward & Cave and Douglas J. May, for appellee.
McCarthy, Palmer, Volkema & Becker and William C. Becker;
Eleanor L. Speelman and Stanton G. Darling, urging reversal for
amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.

The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been
improvidently allowed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the
court of appeals.
Douglas, J., concurring. I concur with the judgment of
the majority to dismiss this appeal as having been
improvidently allowed. I write separately to make the point
that our action does not necessarily mean that the holding of
the court of appeals, that Cremeans v. Willmar Henderson Mfg.
Co. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 145, 566 N.E.2d 1203, applies only to
cases involving defective products, is correct. The syllabus
in Cremeans reads: "An employee does not voluntarily or
unreasonably assume the risk of injury which occurs in the
course of his or her employment when that risk must be
encountered in the normal performance of his or her required
job duties and responsibilities."
Admittedly, Cremeans involved the use of a defective
product. That in and of itself does not, however, make
Cremeans a products liability case as found by the court of

appeals' majority when it stated that "Cremeans is a products
liability case involving strict liability in tort." Nothing in
the syllabus of Cremeans limits its holding to defective
products. The holding in Cremeans involved injuries suffered
by an employee in the workplace and was not limited to injuries
caused only by defective products.
Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.