Davenport v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
493 N.E.2d 1331, 24 Ohio St. 3d 131 (1986)
- Written by Jose Espejo , JD
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…
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.
