Strict Liability: Ohio vs. Michigan

In Ohio, strict liability is commonly applied in cases involving defective products, where sellers can be held liable for injuries caused by a product that is unreasonably dangerous due to its defect. The Ohio Revised Code § 2307.71 establishes that a product is defective if it does not meet the expectations of an ordinary consumer or if it is unreasonably dangerous given its foreseeable uses. The courts emphasize the need for the plaintiff to prove that the product was defective and that this defect proximately caused the injury, placing the burden on the manufacturer or seller in these cases.

Additionally, Ohio courts have clarified that strict liability applies regardless of the level of care exercised by the manufacturer or seller, meaning that even a product that was meticulously designed and manufactured can still result in strict liability if a defect is present. This framework follows the precedent established in the landmark case of McCormack v. J. J. Newberry Co., which reinforced strict liability principles in product defect cases.

Michigan's approach to strict liability is rooted in the case law established by the Michigan Supreme Court. The state adopts the principle that a manufacturer is strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945 lays out the parameters, affirming that a product is considered defective if it fails to meet consumer safety expectations or lacks adequate warnings or instructions for safe use. Unlike Ohio’s statute, Michigan emphasizes public policy considerations in its strict liability decisions, often balancing the rights of consumers against the responsibilities of manufacturers.

In cases such as Klyszejko v. The Lakewood Company, Michigan courts clarified that proving a defect do not necessarily require evidence of negligence; rather, focus lies on the characteristics of the product itself. This distinction creates a favorable environment for plaintiffs since they do not have to prove a lack of reasonable care on the part of the manufacturer or seller, streamlining the path to liability in many product-related injury claims.