To enact section 2307.56 of the Revised Code to provide for a reasonable expectation test in determining liability for injury caused by consumption of food containing a substance injurious to health and for the jury to make that determination.
Summary
SB 38 would create a new section of the Ohio Revised Code governing civil liability when a person is injured, dies, or suffers loss after consuming food that contains a substance injurious to human health. The bill applies to food provided by a food service operation or obtained from a supplier, and it directs that liability be determined based on whether the injured person had a reasonable expectation that the food would not contain a harmful substance.
The bill also assigns that factual determination to the trier of fact, meaning the jury or judge in a bench trial would decide whether the consumer reasonably expected the food to be free of the injurious substance. In effect, the measure establishes a consumer-expectation standard for these food-related injury claims and would add a new statutory rule for courts to apply in such cases.
Impact
If enacted, SB 38 would add section 2307.56 to the Revised Code and create a new legal standard for lawsuits involving harmful substances in food. It would affect food service operators and suppliers by making liability turn on the consumer’s reasonable expectation, rather than solely on the presence of the harmful substance itself. The bill would also influence how courts instruct juries and evaluate claims in food contamination or food injury cases.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-liability clarification rather than a broadly controversial policy change. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. The overall tone of the bill is procedural and legalistic, focusing on how liability should be determined in court.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the choice of legal standard: SB 38 would make liability depend on whether the injured person reasonably expected the food to be free of harmful substances. Supporters may view this as a fair way to align liability with consumer expectations, while critics could argue it narrows or complicates recovery for injured consumers by adding a subjective fact question. Another possible issue is that the bill places the determination with the trier of fact, which could increase litigation over what consumers reasonably expected in a given food context.