Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 163 Ohio App.3d 70 (2005) 836 N.E.2d 52, 2005 -Ohio- 4694 Attorneys and Law Firms 163 Ohio App.3d 70 Court of Appeals of Ohio, **55 Clifford C. Masch, Cleveland and Timothy B. First District, Hamilton County. Schenkel, Cincinnati, for appellees. WOESTE, Admr., Appellant, William E. Santen Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant. Opinion WASHINGTON PLATFORM SALOON SYLVIA S. HENDON, Judge. & RESTAURANT et al., Appellees, et al. *73 *163 Plaintiff-appellant, Kimberly Woeste, No. C-050030. administrator of the estate of Thomas Woeste, has appealed, on behalf of the estate's beneficiaries, the trial court's Decided Sept. 9, 2005. grant of summary judgment without explanation in favor of defendants-appellees, Washington Platform Saloon & Synopsis Restaurant ("Washington Platform") and Johnny's Oyster and Background: Administrator of restaurant patron's estate Shrimp, Inc. (hereinafter, " Johnny's"). brought action for negligence and strict liability against restaurant and company that harvested oysters, seeking recovery after patron died as result of contracting the bacteria vibrio vulnificus after eating raw oysters at restaurant. The Vibrio Vulnificus Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, No. A-0105244, (1 2} Thomas Woeste died as a result of contracting granted summary judgment in favor of restaurant and the bacteria vibrio vulnificus after eating raw oysters at company. Administrator appealed. Washington Platform. Vibrio is a naturally occurring bacteria in oysters that are harvested in warm waters. The oysters ingest the bacteria as they filter feed. Vibrio has no effect Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Sylvia S. Hendon, J., held on the large majority of the population; however, it can that: cause death or serious bodily injury to certain people with weakened or impaired immune systems. Woeste suffered restaurant's warning concerning risks associated with eating from Hepatitis C and cirrhosis of the liver, making him raw oysters was adequate; particularly susceptible to vibrio. raw oysters that contained vibrio were not "adulterated," for {13} Woeste consumed approximately one dozen raw oysters purposes of state Pure Food and Drug Law; while at Washington Platform. The oysters Woeste consumed were harvested in Texas by Johnny's. Washington Platform'sraw oysters that contained vibrio were not \"adulterated.\" for purposes of state Pure Food and Drug Law; company did not breach its duty to keep oysters cool; company's warning concerning risks associated with eating raw oysters was adequate; and company had duty to warn consumers of risks associated with eating raw oysters. Airmed. '.'.'L '- T _ .l I-'rl {T 3} Woeste consumed approximately one dozen raw oysters while at Washington Platform. The oysters Woeste consumed were harvested in Texas by Johnny's. Washington Platform's menu contained a warning regarding the dangers of eating raw shellsh. Woeste, however. ordered the oysters without opening the menu and reading the warning. Woeste died one week after contracting vibrio from the raw oysters. {' 4} Appellant contends that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact were present in the allegations against both Washington Platform and Johnny's. Appellant alleges that XVashington Platform was both negligent and strictly liable for failing to adequately warn of the dangers of eating raw oysters and that the restaurant violated Ohio's Pure Food and Drug Law1 by receiving and delivering adulterated oysters. Appellant Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 163 Ohio App.3d 7D [2005] 836 N_E_2d 52: 2005 Ohio 4694 further alleges that Johnny's was negligent for breaching a duty to keep the oysters re'igerated after harvesting them, that Johnny's should have been held strictly liable for failure to warn of the dangers associated with the oysters, and that Johnny's violated Ohio's Pure Food and Drug Law by receiving or distributing *74 adulterated oysters. Summary judgment was granted on all the estate's claims. {'1 5} Summary judgment may appropriately be granted when {r 9} \"(a) The manufacturer knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk that is associated with the product and that allegedly caused harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages; [and] {r 10} "(b) The manufacturer failed to provide the warning or instruction that a manufacturer exercising reasonable care would have provided concerning that *75 risk, in light of the {'[ 5} Summary judgment may appropriately be granted when there exists no genuine issue of material fact= the movant is entitl ed to judgnent as a matter of law, and the evidence, when viewed in favor of the nonmoving party. permits only one reasonable conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.2 \\Ve review grants of summary judgment de novo: without any deference to the trial court's decision} We now address the claims against each appellee in turn. Washington Platform {T 6} Appellant claims that Washington Platform was both negligent and strictly liable for failing to provide an adequate warning regarding the dangers associated with raw oysters. \"The stande in*56 imposed upon the defendant in a strict liability claim grounded upon an inadequate warning is the same as that imposed in a negligence claim based upon inadequate warning."Jr {f 7} Ohio has adopted Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts regarding strict liability. This section provides, \"One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused * \" \"'2\" Thus: for strict liability to be imposed. the product must be defective, and the defect must make the product unreasonably dangerous. A product may be defective because of an inadequate warning even if it contains no design or manufacturing defect.S For purposes of the claim against Washington Platform= we address only whether the warning provided was adequate. We reserve our analysis regarding the necessity of a warning for our discussion of the claim against Johnny's. {'1 8} R.C. 2307.76 protides the standard for determining when an inadequate warning makes a product defective. The following elements must be shown: would have provided concerning that *75 risk, in light of the likelihood that the product would cause harm of the type for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages and in light of the likely seriousness of that harm.\" {r 11} After extensively reviewing the record, we conclude. as a matter of law. that no liability c ould have been imposed on Washington Platform for an inadequate warning. Washington Platform's menu contained a warning located directly below all the oyster entrees: Consumer Information: There may be risks associated when consuming shell sh as in the case with other raw protein products. If you su'er from chronic illness of the liver. stomach or blood, or if you are pregnant or if you have other immune disorders, you should eat these products illy cooked. Appellant alleges that this warning was not adequate. because it did not warn of the possibility of death. We disagree. The warning complied with the standard established in R.C. 230'.'6. Washington Platform was aware of the dangers associated with the oysters. This was evidenced by the warning present in its menu. \\Ve are persuaded that the warning provided was one that a manufacturer exercising reasonable care would have issued. It adequately put a patron on notice of the risks associated with eating raw shellsh, including raw oysters. {r 12} Other states have found substantially similar warnings to be adequate. Louisiana mandates a warning that contains the language \"[t]here may be a risk associated with consuming raw shellsh as is the case with other raw protein products. If you suffer from chronic illness of the liver. stomach or blood or have other immune disorders, you should eat these products fully cooked.\"6 This warning is \"'57 nearly identical to the naming provided by Washington Platform; in fact, Washington Platform's warning was slightly more detailed because it included the category of pregnant women, who are not listed in the Louisiana waming. Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 163 Ohio App.3d 70 [2005] 836 N_E_2d 52, 2005 -Ohio- 4694 {'l 13} Texas requires a warning stating that =\"there is a risk associated with consuming raw oysters or any raw animal protein. If you have chronic illness of the liver, stomach, or blood, or have immune disorders, you are at greatest risk of illness from raw oysters and should eat oysters illy cooked. If unsure of your risk, consult your physician}: Washington Platform's warning was substantially similar to this. Both mention stomach, liver, blood, and immune disorders. The main difference between the two warnings is that the Texas warning specically refers to raw oysters. In our view, this is a distinction without a dierence. *76 Washington Platform instead used the term \"shellsh." This wm obviously a broader term, but we conclude that a reasonable consumer would have been aware that this term included oysters. {'[ 14} There is one additional fact that is particularly telling. In her deposition, Kimberly Woeste, Woeste's wife, discussed Washington Platform's warning. She stated that if Woeste had in fact read the warning, he would not have eaten the raw oysters. It is diicult to deem the warning inadequate when we are presented with evidence that the warning would have prevented Woeste from eating the oysters. Washington Platform cannot be subjected to liability for Woeste's failure to read the warning provided in the menu. Our reasoning is supported by the Second Restatement of Torts, which provides that \"[w]here warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded.\"S {'1 15} Appellant argues that warnings should have been placed in more visible locations throughout the restaurant. While this undoubtedly would have ensured that more people would have seen the warning, it was both unreasonable and impractical. Washington Platform located the warning on its menu next to the food item that necessitated the warning. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the restaurant business and the dangers associated {' 18} Yibrio is not an added substance. It is a naturally occurring bacteria that is taken in as the oysters lter feed. Because it is naturally occurring, vibrio cannot adulterate the oysters unless the amount of vibrio present in a particular oyster would ordinarily render it injurious to health. This was not the case here. Yibrio has a minimal eect on the general population. At most, it can cause indigestion \"58 or diarrhea; it is not commonly injurious to health. Vibrio is only deadly to those with weakened immune systems or stomach disorders. Tragically, Woeste fell into the latter category. Because the bacteria does not aect the *7? great majority of those who eat raw oysters, we conclude that the oysters in This case were not adulterated.10 Johnny's {" 19} Appellant also alleges that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Johnny's negligently failed to refrigerate the oysters after they were harvested, whether Johnny's failed to properly warn of the dangers of eating raw oysters, and whether Johnny's violated Ohio's Pure Food and Drug Law by distributing adulterated oysters. We need discuss only the rst two issues, as we have already determined, as a matter of law, that the oysters were not adulterated. {" 20} To succeed on its common-law negligence claim, appellant had to show that Johnny's had a duty to refrigerate the oysters, that Johnny's breached its duty by failing to refrigerate, and that the breach caused the harm Woeste su'ered. If the temperature of an oyster is too high, the number of vibrio present in the oyster will multiply. Because of the risk associated with oysters containing yibrio, especially an excess amount of \\ibrio, it is clear that Johnny's