## Facts

- Clark Hall, a Kent State University dormitory, was designed between 1961 and 1963 by Larson & Nassau and constructed by Knowlton Construction Company, with completion by December 31, 1966.
- On September 11, 1985, Michael R. Sedar, a 19-year-old student, was severely injured when his right hand and arm went through a wire-reinforced glass panel in a dormitory door.
- On April 8, 1987, Sedar sued the architect and general contractor, alleging negligent design and/or construction of Clark Hall, including the door and glass panel.
- Defendants sought summary judgment under Ohio’s 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property, R.C. 2305.131, which bars actions against those providing design and construction services more than 10 years after completion of those services.

## Issues

1. Whether R.C. 2305.131, as applied to bar a negligence claim arising more than 10 years after completion of design and construction services, violates the due process and open-courts/right-to-a-remedy guarantee in Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
2. Whether R.C. 2305.131 violates equal protection under Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment by treating late-arising construction-injury claims differently and protecting architects and contractors.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and upheld summary judgment for the architect and contractor.
- The court held that R.C. 2305.131 is constitutional as applied to bar Sedar’s negligence claim arising more than 18 years after defendants completed their services.
- The court concluded the statute does not violate Ohio’s due process/right-to-a-remedy provision or state and federal equal protection guarantees.

## Legal Principles

- A statute of repose may bar an action before a cause of action accrues by preventing the accrual of specified tort claims after a fixed period following completion of designated services.
- Article I, Section 16 does not require recognition of a tort claim that the legislature has validly foreclosed before it arises; an unaccrued claim is not a vested right.
- Under rational basis review, a repose period for claims against architects and construction contractors is permissible where the legislature could reasonably seek to limit indefinite liability, reduce stale-claim problems, and address difficulties in defending old construction claims.
- Differential treatment of designers/builders and owners/occupiers can be rational where those in actual possession and control remain subject to liability while non-possessory service providers receive repose after the statutory period.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Ohio’s 10-year construction statute of repose as a valid legislative limit on tort liability, ruling that it constitutionally barred a third party’s negligence claim against an architect and contractor when the injury occurred long after the completion of their design and construction services.


Sedar v. Knowlton Constr. Co., 49 Ohio St. 3d 193, 551 N.E.2d 938 (Ohio 1990)