## Facts

- On May 11, 1995, a fire destroyed the home of David and Susan Nearon in Darke County, Ohio.
- The Nearons owned a Frigidaire electric range manufactured by White Consolidated Industries, Inc. (White).
- Shortly before the fire, Susan Nearon set the oven to the self-clean cycle.
- The Nearons’ homeowner’s insurer, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Donegal), paid the Nearons $130,712.48 for the loss and pursued recovery to the extent of its subrogation rights.
- The Nearons and Donegal sued White, alleging the range was defective and caused the fire, including a design-defect theory.
- At trial, plaintiffs presented fire-origin evidence that placed the fire’s origin in the range area and sought to exclude other likely ignition sources.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the consumer-expectations test for design defect.
- The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and awarded $104,000 in damages.
- The trial court subsequently entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for White (setting aside the jury’s liability determination).
- Plaintiffs appealed the JNOV; White raised additional challenges to the verdict, including evidentiary and sufficiency arguments.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most strongly for plaintiffs, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the range defectively designed under Ohio’s consumer-expectations test.
2. Whether the trial court erred by entering JNOV for White after the jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict on the design-defect claim.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ proof of defect and causation in a residential-fire case could rest on circumstantial evidence locating the origin in the product and excluding other reasonable ignition sources.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to exclude or strike plaintiffs’ fire-cause testimony.
5. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest based on the parties’ settlement conduct.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s JNOV, holding that the record contained legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find a design defect under the consumer-expectations standard.
- The court reinstated the jury’s $104,000 verdict and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the verdict.
- The court rejected White’s arguments that plaintiffs’ fire-cause evidence should have been excluded and concluded the evidentiary rulings did not require a new trial.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest.

## Legal Principles

- A JNOV motion tests legal sufficiency; the court must construe the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party and may grant JNOV only when reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion against that party.
- Under Ohio products-liability law, a design defect may be shown by the consumer-expectations test when ordinary jurors can assess whether, in intended or reasonably foreseeable use, the product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect.
- In fire-loss product cases, defect and proximate cause may be proved through circumstantial evidence, including proof that the fire originated in or near the product and that other reasonable ignition sources were ruled out.
- Trial courts have broad authority over the admission of opinion testimony; disputes about a fire-origin witness’s methodology and inferences typically go to weight and credibility for the jury unless the testimony fails threshold admissibility requirements.
- Prejudgment interest in tort actions depends on whether the judgment debtor failed to make a good-faith effort to settle; where liability and causation were genuinely disputed and the record supports reasonable litigation conduct, denial of prejudgment interest is within the trial court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

Donegal and the Nearons presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that White’s electric range was defectively designed under the consumer-expectations test and that the defect caused the house fire. Because the jury’s verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s JNOV, reinstated the $104,000 verdict, and remanded for entry of judgment, while affirming the denial of prejudgment interest and leaving the trial court’s evidentiary rulings in place.


Donegal Mutual Insurance v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 852 N.E.2d 215 (2006)