## Facts

- The Heil Company manufactured a dump bed and hydraulic hoist system for installation on truck chassis and sold the system through authorized distributors.
- A dump truck equipped with a Heil hoist system was purchased in 1979; at the owner’s request, a distributor replaced the original cable controls with a Heil-manufactured lever control system, including a weld that later failed.
- In 1980, the truck was used to deliver gravel to David Bowling’s home.
- After dumping gravel, the bed stayed elevated and would not descend.
- Bowling went beneath the raised dump bed to investigate and manipulate the pump valve control lever.
- When Bowling operated the lever, the bed suddenly descended and crushed him, causing immediate death.
- The estate alleged the hoist/control system was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- The jury found a defect that caused death and found Bowling contributorily negligent, but found no voluntary assumption of risk.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative negligence or comparative fault principles apply to a strict products-liability action.
2. Whether Ohio’s Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (R.C. 2307.31 and 2307.32) abolished joint and several liability.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s full damages judgment for the estate.
- Comparative negligence/comparative fault principles were held inapplicable to strict liability in tort products-liability claims.
- Because the jury found no assumption of risk (and there was no finding of unforeseeable misuse), Bowling’s contributory negligence did not reduce recovery on the strict-liability claim.
- Ohio’s contribution statute was held not to abolish joint and several liability; it provides contribution rights among tortfeasors without limiting the plaintiff’s ability to recover the full judgment from a liable defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio’s comparative negligence statute applies only to “negligence actions” and does not extend to strict products liability in tort.
- In strict products liability, contributory negligence is not a defense when it consists only of failing to discover a defect or to guard against the possibility of its existence.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A principles, complete defenses in strict products liability include:
  - voluntary and knowing assumption of the risk posed by the defect; and
  - unforeseeable misuse of the product.
- The Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act preserves joint and several liability as to the plaintiff while allowing contribution among jointly liable tortfeasors.

## Conclusion

The court held that strict products-liability recovery is not reduced by comparative negligence and that Ohio’s contribution statutes do not eliminate joint and several liability, reinstating the estate’s undiminished judgment against the manufacturer.


Bowling v. Heil Co., 31 Ohio St. 3d 277, 511 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1987)