Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc.
2007 Ore. LEXIS 814, 171 P.3d 336, 343 Or. 276 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sale of a chattel and the passage of time do not, as a matter of law, absolve a prior owner of liability for its negligent maintenance if that negligence was a substantial contributing cause of a subsequent, foreseeable injury.
Facts:
- May Trucking Company purchased a 1993 Kenworth tractor-trailer new or nearly new and owned it for approximately six years.
- During its ownership over 500,000 miles, May Trucking failed to perform the manufacturer's recommended maintenance on the rear axle assembly, including regular cleaning, inspection, and repacking of the bearings.
- On August 8, 1997, some maintenance work was performed on the rear axle shaft and drive axle.
- In November 1999, May Trucking sold the tractor-trailer.
- The tractor-trailer was then owned by other non-parties before being sold to Lewis Farm, Inc. in January 2000.
- In November 2000, while an employee of Lewis Farm was driving the tractor-trailer, its left rear axle assembly failed and separated from the vehicle.
- The detached dual wheels and tires bounced across the highway and struck the plaintiff's vehicle, causing it to crash and become engulfed in flames, resulting in substantial injuries to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued May Trucking Company, Lewis Farm, Inc., and Paccar, Inc. in an Oregon state trial court.
- Plaintiff's claims against Lewis Farm and Paccar were resolved, leaving only the claim against May Trucking.
- May Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted May Trucking's motion and entered judgment in its favor.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment by an evenly divided vote.
- Plaintiff petitioned the Supreme Court of Oregon for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior owner's sale of a vehicle approximately one year before an accident, as a matter of law, absolve that owner of liability for its alleged negligent maintenance when that negligence is pleaded as a substantial cause of a plaintiff's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Kistler, J.
No. A prior owner is not absolved of liability as a matter of law simply because it sold the vehicle before the accident occurred. The court reasoned that liability for negligence depends on whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of the kind of harm that occurred. Here, the plaintiff alleged that May Trucking's negligent maintenance was a 'substantial contributing cause' of the axle failure, and the resulting harm—wheels detaching and causing a crash—was squarely within the scope of the foreseeable risk created by such negligence. The court rejected the argument that the subsequent owner's (Lewis Farm's) duty to inspect and maintain the vehicle was a superseding cause that broke the chain of causation. Citing its precedent in Hills v. McGillvrey and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 452(1), the court held that the failure of a third person to act to prevent harm does not, as a general rule, excuse the original actor from the consequences of their own negligence.
Concurring - Balmer, J.
No. The majority correctly concluded that the plaintiff's complaint states a valid claim for relief. This opinion emphasizes the procedural posture of the case, which is a motion to dismiss, requiring the court to accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true. The defendant staked its entire defense at this stage on the single legal argument that the sale of the truck automatically bars the claim, which is incorrect under existing precedent like Hills. The concurrence notes that May Trucking may ultimately prevail if facts developed during discovery or at trial show it was not negligent, or if other facts establish a valid legal defense (e.g., the truck was sold for scrap, or a subsequent accident caused the damage). However, based solely on the complaint's allegations, the case must be allowed to proceed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the core tort principle that liability follows foreseeability and is not automatically severed by an intervening transfer of property. It clarifies that a subsequent owner's duty to maintain a vehicle is not necessarily a superseding cause that relieves the original negligent actor of all responsibility. The case is significant for sellers of used, high-mileage equipment, as it demonstrates that they may retain liability for latent defects created by their negligent maintenance long after a sale. For law students, it serves as a critical example of how courts analyze foreseeability and intervening causes in negligence actions, and highlights the high bar for dismissing a negligence claim on the pleadings when causation and foreseeability are plausibly alleged.
