798, 694 N.E.2d 114, 116-17 (1997) (noting that in absence of privity, Ohio law distinguishes between consumers, who may maintain negligence claim for solely economic damages, and commercial buyers, who may not). Nevertheless, Whirlpool says that even if Ohio law permits consumers to bring such a negligence action, this exception applies only to claims for tortious breach of warranty. [Doc. 37 at 36-37.] Although Whirlpool correctly notes that La-Puma dealt only with a warranty claim, it fails to adequately account for the Supreme Court of Ohio’s rather plain holdings that a plaintiff may pursue common-law claims for negligent design and failure to warn even though he has suffered only economic damages. See Carrel v. Allied Prods. Corp., 78 Ohio St.3d 284, 677 N.E.2d 795, 800 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio
holding that commonlaw action of negligent design survived enactment of ohio products liability act even though act required more than economic damages holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that a plaintiff may recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act provided the copyright damages serve a purpose other than compensation holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct