loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.” Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 537 N.E.2d 624, 630 (198 y of contract, courts apply a more relaxed rule, allowing individual consumers to bring negligence claims for solely economic injuries. For example, discussing recovery for a product’s self-in flicted damage, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted, “[f] or an ordinary consumer, ie., one not in privity of contract with the seller or manufacturer against whom recovery is sought, an action in negligence may be an appropriate remedy to protect the consumer’s property interests.” Chemtrol, 537 N.E.2d at 631; see also LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete, 75 Ohio St.3d 64, 661 N.E.2d 714, 716 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Midwest Ford, Inc. v. C.T. Taylor Co., 118
holding that products liability cases only give rise to a tort claim where product failure harms public safety holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that consumers failure to allege other than economic damages does not destroy tort claim but only removes it from purview of products liability statutes recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product