The Ohio First District Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment for Yamaha in a wrongful death case involving a University of Cincinnati student-athlete, Ms. Sidloski, who drowned during a summer boating trip with friends. The appellate decision emphasized the well-developed record and the testimony of the estate’s experts in finding that there were issues of fact related to the adequacy of the warnings and design of the boat and whether those alleged defects proximately caused the passenger’s death. The court also found that the boat operator’s and passenger’s conduct, including whether they read and heeded the warnings in the manual or on the boat, were not dispositive but were issues of fact related to comparative fault for the jury to resolve.

The court’s decision underscores critical lessons for manufacturers defending warnings and design defect claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), R.C. 2307.71, et seq.

Sidloski v. Fischer, 1st Dist. (Hamilton) No. 240570, 2025-Ohio-5069

Four summers ago, the decedent sat in the rear-facing seats on the back of a Yamaha jet boat while her friend wakeboarded behind the boat. When her friend fell, the boat came to a stop and the decedent jumped into the water. Without a life preserver or other flotation device, she disappeared under the surface and later drowned. Her estate alleged exposure to carbon monoxide from the boat’s exhaust caused her death and the estate claimed the boat’s design encouraged passengers to sit in hazardous areas that did not feature adequate warnings.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Yamaha, relying in large part on the boat operator’s and passenger’s failure to read and heed the warnings in the owner’s manual. Those warnings cautioned that running the engines could expose passengers to carbon monoxide and advised the operator to shut off the engines when not in use. Because the boat operator failed to heed those warnings, his negligence broke the chain of causation, said the trial court.

The appellate court reversed, finding that factual disputes related to causation, warnings and the boat design precluded summary judgment.

The jury must determine whether the boat’s allegedly inadequate warnings or design was the proximate cause of death

Yamaha outfitted the upper swim platform on the back of the boat with cushions, cupholders and radio controls. The appellate court referred to these features as “anti-warnings” and found that the design of the boat might have encouraged passengers to sit on the upper swim platform, even when the engine was running, potentially exposing the passengers to carbon monoxide.

Testimony of the estate’s expert witnesses also raised questions as to whether the alleged inadequate warnings or design of the boat proximately caused Ms. Sidloski’s death. First, the appellate court pointed to the estate’s toxicology expert, who opined that decedent was exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide while seated on the upper swim platform before entering the water at the rear of the boat. Next, the estate’s human factors expert testified that the boat was unreasonably dangerous as designed because it lacked warnings regarding carbon monoxide poisoning on the upper swim platform.

The appellate court found that the opinions of the estate’s experts were sufficient to call into question whether the alleged inadequate warnings and design of the boat were the proximate cause of death. The court did not analyze whether the opinions of the estate’s experts were reliable or admissible, presumably because no motions challenging their admissibility had yet been filed. Further, according to the appellate court, any conflicting expert testimony was an issue for the jury, not for the trial court to consider on summary judgment.

The trial court improperly applied the read-and-heed presumption to inadequate warnings claim

Not only was the appellate court unsatisfied with the trial court’s proximate cause analysis, it also criticized the trial court’s reliance on the read-and-heed presumption. Under that presumption, a seller may reasonably assume that where a warning is given, it will be read and heeded. The appellate court, however, refused to apply the read-and-heed presumption, let alone consider whether the decedent would not have perished had she heeded the warnings on the boat.

Instead, the appellate court focused on distinguishing Ohio Supreme Court precedent that involved a workplace injury, a boom crane, and an operator who was required to and did read the crane manual. Freas v. Prater Constr. Corp., 60 Ohio St.3d 6, 9, 573 N.E.2d 27 (1991) (affirming summary judgment for manufacturer where decedent failed to follow the instructions and comply with the warnings provided in the operator’s manual).

In this case, the appellate court found the trial court erred by applying the presumption without first examining the circumstances of the case. Unlike the operator in Freas, the decedent was a passenger in the boat, so the court determined she could not reasonably be expected to read the operator’s manual. In addition, the warnings on the lower swim platform may not be adequate to protect passengers like the decedent who was sitting on the upper swim platform.  

The appellate court also was critical of certain on-product warnings because they did not include the same specificity as the warnings in the operator’s manual. The appellate court credited the estate’s experts for calling into question the adequacy of the warnings including their location and specific content. The court discounted the fact that those warnings complied with industry guidelines and that the decedent and operator did not follow various warnings.

In other words, this opinion illustrates that some courts may closely examine the adequacy of warnings before applying the read-and-heed presumption, which may limit a manufacturer’s ability to use the presumption to its advantage.

The trial court failed to conduct a full risk-benefit analysis

The appellate court reversed summary judgment on the design defect claim because the trial court failed to conduct a full risk-benefit analysis under R.C. 2307.75.

A product is defective in design if the foreseeable risks of the design outweigh its benefits. Courts weigh a list of factors, including the foreseeable risks, consumer expectations, likelihood of harm, technical feasibility and alternative designs. See R.C. 2307.75(B)–(C).

The trial court, however, analyzed only one factor—the presence of warning labels on the boat made decedent aware of the risks. See R.C. 2307.75(B)(2). But the statute says that courts shall weigh all risk and benefit factors and the appellate court treated that language as mandatory. Failure to do so was reversible error.

The appellate court also reversed the trial court for dismissing the design defect claim based on the absence of a reasonable alternative design. The estate’s experts opined that a catalytic converter could be used to reduce the emission of carbon monoxide from the boat’s engines. Although the appellate court clarified that its absence did not render the boat inherently defective, a catalytic converter was a potentially feasible alternative design to be considered under R.C. 2307.75. The feasibility of that design was a question for the jury to resolve.

Key takeaways for manufacturers

This decision reminds us that courts may be reluctant to grant summary judgment in complex product liability cases that involve death or serious injury and multiple liability experts. With that in mind, consider the following takeaways:

1. Expert testimony may need to be challenged early. If expert testimony may undermine your summary judgment motion, consider whether to file a motion challenging the admissibility of such testimony by the summary judgment deadline.
2. The read-and-heed presumption has limits. Courts may scrutinize the adequacy of warnings before applying the presumption. Compliance with industry standards does not mean that a warning is adequate, and including a warning in an operator’s manual may be insufficient to warn a passenger. Consider the circumstances surrounding the passenger’s ability to read and follow the on-product warnings.
3. Do not discount any risk-benefit factors. When challenging the sufficiency of a design defect claim, make sure to address all factors under R.C. 2307.75. The feasibility of a plaintiff’s proposed alternative design may be a fact-intensive inquiry that precludes summary judgment.

For more information, please contact Elizabeth Moyo, Jason Gerken, Helen Fite or any member of the Product Liability practice group.