100

the jury ?

Mr . CRAIG . Let me ask you to respond to this statement , if you would , please . It is a statement that I found in the transcript that I thought most interesting . And it says , I don ' t believe that there has been any showing by the plaintiffs in this case of any stand ards to which we can apply to answering the question of negligent design in the case .

Do you remember who made that statement , Mr . Scanlon ? Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . Yes , sir . Judge Reece on motion for di rected verdict on one of the claims . And if I may explain - -

Mr . CRAIG . Go right ahead . Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . There were two kinds of claims made in the case . One was based on what is called strict liability , that the vehicle was more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect . The other one was a claim of negligent design . And at the conclusion of our evidence , that comment was made by the court in withdrawing from the jury the claim of negligent design .

Mr . CRAIG . So the jury was not asked to find in the area of negli gent design ?

Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . That is correct , Mr . Craig . The jury found on the issue of it being inherently dangerous .

Mr . CRAIG . OK . Here is another statement . Therefore , in my opinion , as a matter of law , that the plaintiffs have not established a cause for action of negligent design . ' Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . Yes , sir . Mr . CRAIG . That was the judge and his statement in instructing Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . Well , in this context of what we are talk ing about , in withdrawing the issue of negligent design , that was the statement that was made . There is no basis to the issue . That did not relate to the basis on which the case was given to the jury .

Mr . CRAIG . So in other words if I understand it , and I am not an attorney , and I apologize in these instances where I attempt to read the legalese , the give and take of a trial ' s transcript , the judge was basically saying you cannot argue that the design is neg

Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . Yes , Mr . Craig . But Ohio has a peculiar situation since the adoption of this rule of so - called strict liability . Ohio has apparently taken the position that you cannot combine in a design product liability case a claim of strict liability and negli gence . And that was the focus for that discussion and that ruling by the court .

Mr . CRAIG . But as a matter of law , the judge made that state ment , and accordingly ruled that the jury could not find . Is that correct ?

Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . There were no standards that existed against which the design of this product could be compared , yes , sir .

Mr . CRAIG . And that ruling came after Mr . Menkes ' testimony and after the testimony of Honda , or prior to ?

Mr . TIMOTHY SCANLON . It came during Honda ' s testimony . Actu ally Honda had not - for those lawyers on the subcommittee , had made no request at the conclusion of our case that any part of it be dismissed . About into the second or third day of Honda ' s testimony , the judge brought that up on his own . It was during Honda ' s testi mony .

ent ?