Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131 (1986)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court
493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131 (1986)

Facts

William Davenport (plaintiff) was allegedly injured when a cherry picker owned by his employer, Wendell Fisher, collapsed due to a defective rod-end assembly. Davenport alleged that prior to the incident, E. H. J. Skyworker Services, Inc. (Skyworker) had repaired the cherry picker and failed to warn of the defective rod-end assembly. Skyworker alleged it did not have knowledge of the defect and had no duty to discover it. At trial, there was a disputed statement from a representative of the cherry-picker manufacturer, Correct Manufacturing Corporation (Correct), to Herbert Van Dyke, an agent of Skyworker at the time of repair, that the defective piece needed replacement. Skyworker alleged it was not responsible for Van Dyke’s knowledge because it had been learned before Van Dyke became an agent of Skyworker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Skyworker. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the summary judgment, but it held that Skyworker could not be held accountable for Van Dyke’s knowledge learned prior to becoming an agent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Concurrence/Dissent (Wright, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership