Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2305 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 (2026)

Bodily injury or injury to personal property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 3, 2006
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 17 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Except as provided in division (C) or (E) of this section, an action based on a product liability claim and an action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues. Except as provided in divisions (B)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section, a cause of action accrues under this division when the injury or loss to person or property occurs.

(B)(1) For purposes of division (A) of this section, a cause of action for bodily injury that is not described in division (B)(2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section and that is caused by exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals, ethical drugs, or ethical medical devices accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(2) For purposes of division (A) of this section, a cause of action for bodily injury caused by exposure to chromium in any of its chemical forms accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(3) For purposes of division (A) of this section, a cause of action for bodily injury incurred by a veteran through exposure to chemical defoliants or herbicides or other causative agents, including agent orange, accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(4) For purposes of division (A) of this section, a cause of action for bodily injury caused by exposure to diethylstilbestrol or other nonsteroidal synthetic estrogens, including exposure before birth, accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(5) For purposes of division (A) of this section, a cause of action for bodily injury caused by exposure to asbestos accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (C)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of this section or in section 2305.19 of the Revised Code, no cause of action based on a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or supplier of a product later than ten years from the date that the product was delivered to its first purchaser or first lessee who was not engaged in a business in which the product was used as a component in the production, construction, creation, assembly, or rebuilding of another product.

(2) Division (C)(1) of this section does not apply if the manufacturer or supplier of a product engaged in fraud in regard to information about the product and the fraud contributed to the harm that is alleged in a product liability claim involving that product.

(3) Division (C)(1) of this section does not bar an action based on a product liability claim against a manufacturer or supplier of a product who made an express, written warranty as to the safety of the product that was for a period longer than ten years and that, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, has not expired in accordance with the terms of that warranty.

(4) If the cause of action relative to a product liability claim accrues during the ten-year period described in division (C)(1) of this section but less than two years prior to the expiration of that period, an action based on the product liability claim may be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.

(5) If a cause of action relative to a product liability claim accrues during the ten-year period described in division (C)(1) of this section and the claimant cannot commence an action during that period due to a disability described in section 2305.16 of the Revised Code, an action based on the product liability claim may be commenced within two years after the disability is removed.

(6) Division (C)(1) of this section does not bar an action for bodily injury caused by exposure to asbestos if the cause of action that is the basis of the action accrues upon the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the plaintiff should have known that the plaintiff has an injury that is related to the exposure, whichever date occurs first.

(7)(a) Division (C)(1) of this section does not bar an action based on a product liability claim against a manufacturer or supplier of a product if all of the following apply:

(i) The action is for bodily injury.

(ii) The product involved is a substance or device described in division (B)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section.

(iii) The bodily injury results from exposure to the product during the ten-year period described in division (C)(1) of this section.

(b) If division (C)(7)(a) of this section applies regarding an action, the cause of action accrues upon the date on which the claimant is informed by competent medical authority that the bodily injury was related to the exposure to the product, or upon the date on which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the claimant should have known that the bodily injury was related to the exposure to the product, whichever date occurs first. The action based on the product liability claim shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues and shall not be commenced more than two years after the cause of action accrues.

(D) This section does not create a new cause of action or substantive legal right against any person involving a product liability claim.

(E) An action brought by a victim of childhood sexual abuse asserting any claim resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as defined in section 2305.111 of the Revised Code, shall be brought as provided in division (C) of that section.

(F) As used in this section:

(1) "Agent orange," "causative agent," and "veteran" have the same meanings as in section 5903.21 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Ethical drug," "ethical medical device," "manufacturer," "product," "product liability claim," and "supplier" have the same meanings as in section 2307.71 of the Revised Code.

(3) "Harm" means injury, death, or loss to person or property.

(G) This section shall be considered to be purely remedial in operation and shall be applied in a remedial manner in any civil action commenced on or after April 7, 2005, in which this section is relevant, regardless of when the cause of action accrued and notwithstanding any other section of the Revised Code or prior rule of law of this state, but shall not be construed to apply to any civil action pending prior to April 7, 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 778 cases (222 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 100× “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6827 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 12× “113(C) with R.C. 2305.10(C), which imposes a ten-year statute of repose for product-liability claims, and unlike R.”
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 467 N.E.2d 1378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 11× “09[C]) 4 rather than the two-year limitation for bodily injury (R.C. 2305.10) 5 is applicable. *11 The trial court’s judgment entry does not expressly address which limitation period is applicable.”
Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St. 3d 544 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 19× “12 *558 Ill Discovery Rule — R.C. 2305.10 If a negligent credentialing cause of action is not a claim for malpractice or a medical claim, the obvious question becomes: What is it? It is, simply, a claim for bodily injury arising out of negligence which is not covered by the…”
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 13× “Likewise, general claims of professional negligence which are outside the ambit of R.C. 2305.10 2 and 2305.11 3 are also governed by the four-year limitations period in R.”
Johnson v. Koppers Co., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 1182 (N.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 33× “Code, section 2305.10. The statute of limitations for wrongful death actions provides in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided by law, every such [wrongful death] action must be commenced within two years after the death of such deceased person.”
Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4391 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 9× “{¶ 9} This court accepted appellants' discretionary appeal, which asserts two propositions of law: (1) A diagnosis for the long-term effects of an injury a plaintiff already knew about does not revive a time-barred claim.”
O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 447 N.E.2d 727 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 12× “The issue raised for decision by this court is whether plaintiff’s action is barred under R.C. 2305.10, the statute of limitations for bodily injury actions.”
Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 22× “Facts {¶ 2} After receiving reports of child abuse, on January 2, 2002, Franklin County Children’s Services (“FCCS”) and the Columbus Police investigated the home of appellee, Reverend Iyabo Nadra.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 7× “02[D][2]), a fifteen-year statute of repose for product liability claims (R.C. 2305.10[C]), a six-year statute of repose for professional malpractice claims other than medical (R.”
Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 2022 Ohio 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “The General Assembly made clear in R.C. 2305.10 that R.C. 2125.02 controls when addressing wrongful death cases in the products liability context.”
Oaktree Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Hallmark Bldg. Co., 2014 Ohio 1937 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 26× “As it turned out, the plaintiffs filed their claims over one year after they became vested.”
Show all 778 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(A) — 135 cases
Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4391 (Ohio 2018). “{¶ 9} This court accepted appellants' discretionary appeal, which asserts two propositions of law: (1) A diagnosis for the long-term effects of an injury a plaintiff already knew about does not revive a time-barred claim.”
Roach v. Vapor Station Columbus, Inc., 2022 Ohio 2106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Doty v. Fellhauer Elec., Inc., 888 N.E.2d 1138 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Foley v. Univ. of Dayton (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7591 (Ohio 2016).
Strother v. Columbus, 2022 Ohio 4097 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(B) — 2 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Duffey v. Rust-Oleum Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(B)(1) — 12 cases
Rose v. Tievsky, 2021 Ohio 3051 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Travis Abbott v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 54 F.4th 912 (6th Cir. 2022).
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Mason v. CVS Health, 384 F. Supp. 3d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2019).
Doane v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 2009 Ohio 4989 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(B)(5) — 2 cases
Nichols v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 876 N.E.2d 1269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
Wilson v. Ac S, Inc., 864 N.E.2d 682 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C) — 18 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6827 (Ohio 2020). “113(C) with R.C. 2305.10(C), which imposes a ten-year statute of repose for product-liability claims, and unlike R.”
Oaktree Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Hallmark Bldg. Co., 2014 Ohio 1937 (Ohio 2014). “As it turned out, the plaintiffs filed their claims over one year after they became vested.”
Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 2022 Ohio 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “The General Assembly made clear in R.C. 2305.10 that R.C. 2125.02 controls when addressing wrongful death cases in the products liability context.”
Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II, L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 4626 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C)(1) — 15 cases
Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6827 (Ohio 2020). “113(C) with R.C. 2305.10(C), which imposes a ten-year statute of repose for product-liability claims, and unlike R.”
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Allen v. Andersen Windows, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D. Ohio 2012).
Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II, L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 4626 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Rote v. Zel Custom Mfg., LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 779 (S.D. Ohio 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C)(2) — 3 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Rodgers v. Genesis Heathcare Sys., Inc., 2016 Ohio 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Grayson v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 2022 Ohio 1668 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C)(4) — 3 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Oaktree Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Hallmark Bldg. Co., 2014 Ohio 1937 (Ohio 2014). “As it turned out, the plaintiffs filed their claims over one year after they became vested.”
Kraft v. OMCO Bldg., L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C)(5) — 2 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Oaktree Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Hallmark Bldg. Co., 2014 Ohio 1937 (Ohio 2014). “As it turned out, the plaintiffs filed their claims over one year after they became vested.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(C)(7) — 1 case
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(E) — 4 cases
Pratte v. Stewart, 2010 Ohio 1860 (Ohio 2010).
Watkins v. Dep't of Youth Servs., 39 N.E.3d 1207 (Ohio 2015).
Wells v. Thomson Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 225 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Doe, 1 v. Cleveland Metro. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (N.D. Ohio 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(E)(4) — 1 case
Wells v. Thomson Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 225 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(F) — 5 cases
Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St. 3d 192 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 9} “Kard and Racine assert that they are immune from liability based on the statute of repose for products liability claims provided at R.C. 2305.10. To fully adjudicate this matter and fully determine the rights and liabilities of each party, this Court needs a determination…”
Oaktree Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Hallmark Bldg. Co., 2014 Ohio 1937 (Ohio 2014). “As it turned out, the plaintiffs filed their claims over one year after they became vested.”
Freed v. Farag, 994 F. Supp. 887 (N.D. Ohio 1997).
Wells v. Thomson Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 225 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Cotterman v. City Of Cincinnati (S.D. Ohio 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(F)(2) — 1 case
Mason v. CVS Health, 384 F. Supp. 3d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(G) — 1 case
Pratte v. Stewart, 2010 Ohio 1860 (Ohio 2010).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(a) — 1 case
Freed v. Farag, 994 F. Supp. 887 (N.D. Ohio 1997).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10(c)(1) — 2 cases
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
Rose v. Bersa (S.D. Ohio 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.