CASE NO. 99-CA-201
1.Parties:Identify the plaintiff and the defendant.
a.SANDRA MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
b.FRIDAYS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
2.Facts:Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case. a.On April 11, 1996, Appellant Sandra Mitchell was having dinner at Appellee Friday's restaurant. Appellant was eating a fried clam strip when she bit into a hard substance which she believed to be a piece of a clam shell. b.Some time later, the crown of a tooth came loose.
c.It was determined that the crown could not be reattached and the remaining root of the tooth was extracted d.On September 2, 1997, Appellant filed a product liability action against both Friday's, who served the meal, and against Appellee Pro Source Distributing the supplier of the fried clams.
3.Procedural: Who brought the case on appeal? What was the outcome Historyof the lower court case?
a.Sandra Mitchell, Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal on July 19, 1999. b.Appellant challenged the judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) which granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, restaurant and distributor, in a products liability action regarding a clam shell.
4.Issue:Note the central question or questions on which the case turns. a.the court should have applied the reasonable expectation test to her claim.
5.Holding:How did the court resolve the issues? Who won?
a.The appellate court determined that appellant's claim did not meet either the reasonable expectation test, or the foreign natural test. Nor did appellant set forth any caselaw nor analysis that would suggest that food products fall under the purview of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2307.75, for dangerous products. Appellant set forth no facts to dispute that the object in the clam strip was in fact a piece of clam shell. Thus, that a natural part...