Hernandez v. Barbo MacHinery Co.
957 P.2d 147, 327 Or. 99, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 353 (1998)
Rule of Law:
In strict products liability actions, a plaintiff's comparative fault, consisting of an unobservant, inattentive, ignorant, or awkward failure to discover or guard against a product defect, is not a defense because such negligence is taken into account in finding the product dangerously defective in the first place.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a maintenance mechanic, discovered a new Belsaw at the Westwood Manufacturing Company work site on June 25, 1993, with which he was unfamiliar.
- Plaintiff looked for the saw's on/off switch but could not find it due to darkness and its unusual location, nor could he feel vibration or hear sound, though the saw was operating unbeknownst to him.
- Plaintiff opened the saw's cabinet door, squatted on the floor, and used a flashlight to look inside the cabinet.
- While looking inside the cabinet, plaintiff slipped on sawdust, causing his right hand to go into the moving saw blade.
- The accident resulted in the partial amputation of plaintiff's right hand.
- Defendant Buckner-Weatherby Company, Inc. sold the Belsaw to defendant Barbo Machinery Company, which then sold it to Westwood.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants Barbo Machinery Co. and Buckner-Weatherby Company, Inc. in trial court under a strict products liability theory, alleging four dangerous defects in the Belsaw.
- Defendants raised an affirmative defense of comparative fault, alleging ten instances of plaintiff's negligence.
- At trial, plaintiff requested a specific jury instruction, derived from Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors, regarding the types of plaintiff negligence that cannot constitute comparative fault in a strict products liability action.
- The trial court refused to give plaintiff's requested instruction, believing its substance was a legal question for the court, not the jury.
- The trial court instructed the jury on general comparative fault, reading defendants' ten allegations of plaintiff's negligence and instructing the jury to compare the fault of the parties.
- The jury returned a verdict finding both defendants and plaintiff at fault, attributing 50.5% fault to plaintiff and 49.5% to defendants.
- Based on the jury's findings, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, as plaintiff's fault exceeded defendants' fault.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's refusal to give plaintiff's requested jury instruction constituted reversible error.
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 trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury in a strict products liability action that a plaintiff's comparative fault, consisting of an unobservant, inattentive, ignorant, or awkward failure to discover or guard against a product defect, is not a defense, when such an instruction is a correct statement of the law, supported by pleadings and evidence, and addresses a material issue not otherwise covered?
Opinions:
Majority - Kulongoski, J.
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that a plaintiff's comparative fault, consisting of an unobservant, inattentive, ignorant, or awkward failure to discover or guard against a product defect, is not a defense when the instruction correctly states the law, is supported by pleadings and evidence, and addresses a material issue. The requested jury instruction correctly stated the law as established in Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors (1982) and Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402 A, Comment n, which holds that a plaintiff's incidental carelessness or negligent failure to discover or guard against a product defect is not a proper defense in a strict products liability action. This principle distinguishes such conduct from other forms of negligence, like unreasonable product misuse or unreasonable use despite knowledge of a dangerous defect, which can be defenses. The instruction was supported by both the pleadings, where defendants alleged comparative fault and plaintiff asserted his negligence was of the non-attributable type, and the evidence, as a jury could reasonably find that plaintiff's actions (e.g., slipping on sawdust) constituted an 'unobservant, inattentive, ignorant, or awkward failure' to guard against the saw's defects. The trial court's general comparative fault instructions did not adequately cover this material distinction, allowing the jury to attribute all forms of alleged negligence to plaintiff, including those that should not constitute comparative fault. Given the jury's finding of 50.5% fault for the plaintiff and 49.5% for the defendants, the failure to give the correct instruction created an erroneous impression of the law that may have affected the outcome of the case, thus constituting reversible error and requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of comparative fault in Oregon strict products liability law, reaffirming that not all forms of plaintiff negligence can serve as a defense. It reinforces the principle that manufacturers bear strict liability for dangerously defective products, preventing them from shifting blame to consumers for the very types of inattention or lack of discovery that a safe product design should anticipate or mitigate. The ruling underscores the critical importance of trial courts providing precise and comprehensive jury instructions, especially in cases involving complex interplay between product defects and plaintiff conduct, to ensure jurors correctly apply the legal standards and prevent misperceptions that could sway verdicts.
