QUALITEE MOSHI, Administrator of the Estate on behalf of Matthew P. Moshi v. KIA AMERICA, INC. DONALD STRENCH v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY - Articles

All Content

QUALITEE MOSHI, Administrator of the Estate on behalf of Matthew P. Moshi v. KIA AMERICA, INC. DONALD STRENCH v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 16, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Paul Giorgianni, GIORGIANNI LAW LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant Donald Strench.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan P. Schneller, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee Hyundai Motor America Corporation Service Company.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Paul Giorgianni, GIORGIANNI LAW LLC, Columbus, Ohio, Terry V. Hummel, SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, Columbus, Ohio, for both Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jonathan P. Schneller, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, California, for both Appellees.

Judge(s): MURPHY, DAVIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. For years, Kia and Hyundai produced cars that lacked a standard anti-theft device found in most other vehicles. So thieves began to target these cars in large numbers, which led to a nationwide surge in car thefts. In each of these consolidated cases, a teenager stole one of these cars and, while joyriding, injured an innocent driver on the road. Donald Strench suffered multiple fractures and severe injuries to his head. Matthew Moshi ultimately died from the accident. Strench and Moshi’s estate sued Hyundai and Kia, respectively. They alleged that the companies were liable under the Ohio Product Liability Act because they had manufactured cars with design defects that made them especially susceptible to theft, resulting in Strench’s and Moshi’s tragic injuries. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of proximate causation. In doing so, it relied on a line of Ohio cases that address an individual car owner’s liability for injuries arising from their car’s theft. We hold that those cases do not control product liability claims against car manufacturers, and that the design defect claims therefore survive. But we reject some of Strench’s and Moshi’s other claims on alternative grounds. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.

Attachments: