Court Rulings

<bold>1. Construction Claims — negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses</bold> <bold>— economic loss rule</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by failing to bar plaintiffs' claims under the economic loss rule arising from the subcontractor defendants' alleged negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses used in constructing plaintiffs' home, because: (1) there was no contract between plaintiffs and the subcontractor defendants, and instead those defendants and the general contractor<page_number>Page 636</page_number> defendant entered into a contract for the trusses; (2) there is a means of redress for those purchasers who suffer economic loss or damage from improper construction but who have no basis for recovery in contract; and (3) the subcontractor defendants had a duty to use reasonable care in performing its promise to provide reliable trusses to the general contractor for use in the construction of plaintiffs' residence.</block_quote> <bold>2. Construction Claims — negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses</bold> <bold>— statute of limitations</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err as a matter of law by denying the subcontractor defendants' motion for directed verdict based on the alleged expiration of the three-year statute of limitations under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1-52</cross_reference> in an action arising from defendants' alleged negligence in designing or manufacturing trusses used in constructing plaintiffs' home, because: (1) the statute of limitations shall not accrue until bodily harm to the claimant or physical damages to his property becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant, whichever event occurs first; and (2) whether a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact, and the weighing of the evidence and credibility of witnesses is the responsibility of the jury.</block_quote> <bold>3. Evidence — construction o

Employer and employee—Requirements employee must satisfy in order to prevail against employer for an intentional tort—Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc., applied—Determining whether sufficient evidence exists to survive employer's motion for a directed verdict.

Statutory interpretation—Judicial deference to administrative agencies—Start-up firm seeking certificate of authorization to provide engineering services satisfied R.C. 4733.16(D) by designating independent contractor as its full-time manager—R.C. 4733.16(D) does not preclude an independent contractor from serving as a full-time manager of an engineering firm— In Ohio, judicial deference to administrative agencies is permissive rather than mandatory and may occur only when a statutory term is ambiguous—Court of appeals' judgment after applying mandatory deference to agency's interpretation of statute reversed and cause remanded.

Mandamus sought to compel State Employment Relations Board to vacate its dismissals of three cases alleging unfair labor practices by Portage Lakes Career Center Board of Education, find that there is probable cause to believe that the board committed the alleged unfair labor practices, issue complaints on those charges, and set the cases for hearing—Writ denied when relators have not satisfied their burden of proving that SERB acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner in dismissing the cases.

<p>Non-Argument Calendar.</p>

Petitioner and its subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of soft contact lenses and related products in the United States and abroad. B&L Ireland was organized on Feb. 1, 1980, under the laws of the Republic of Ireland as a third tier, wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner. B&L Ireland was organized for valid business reasons and to take advantage of certain tax and other incentives offered by the Republic of Ireland. Pursuant to an agreement dated Jan. 1, 1981, petitioner granted to B&L Ireland a nonexclusive license to use its patented and unpatented manufacturing technology to manufacture soft contact lenses in Ireland and a nonexclusive license to use certain of its trademarks in the sale of soft contact lenses produced through use of the licensed technology worldwide. In return, B&L Ireland agreed to pay petitioner a royalty equal to 5 percent of sales. In 1981 and 1982, B&L Ireland engaged in the manufacture and sale of soft contact lenses in the Republic of Ireland. All of B&L Ireland's sales were made either to petitioner or certain of petitioner's wholly owned foreign sales affiliates at a price of $ 7.50 per lens. Held, respondent abused his discretion under sec. 482, I.R.C. 1954, when he determined that the $ 7.50 sales price did not constitute an arm's-length consideration for the soft contact lenses sold by B&L Ireland to petitioner. Held, further: The royalty contained in the Jan. 1, 1981, license agreement did not constitute an arm's-length consideration for the use by B&L Ireland of petitioner's intangibles. However, respondent's adjustment to the royalty rate was unreasonable. Sec. 1.482-2(d), Income Tax Regs., applied to determine an arm's-length consideration for use by B&L Ireland of petitioner's intangible property.CONTENTSPageI. Introductory Information529A. Petitioners529B. Bausch & Lomb Ireland, Ltd529C. The Business of B&L and its Subsidiaries530II. Historical Development of the Soft Contact Lens IndustryThrou