fan, which impedance caused the motor to stop and overheat. The expert testimony further established that UL safety guidelines for electric fans require such fans to be protected against overheating either by the installation of a thermal cutoff switch or an impedance-protected motor design. Finally, plaintiffs expert testified that an electric fan that has a properly functioning thermal cutoff switch or a properly functioning impedance-protected motor will not cause a fire. Defendant’s expert did not offer an opinion as to the cause of the fire. Together, this evidence provides sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to find that, but for a defect which was present when the sixteen-inch, oscillating fan left its manufacturer, the fire would not have occurred. See Colboch (<HOLDING>). {¶41} Because a jury finding that a
holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision holding that a posttrial motion is not required after a grant of a directed verdict holding that expert testimony that defectfree tires do not usually explode was sufficient to overcome the defendants motion for a directed verdict