Sandford v. Chevrolet
642 P.2d 624 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon's proportionate fault statute, a plaintiff's recovery in a strict products liability action is reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to their own contributory negligence, except for negligence that consists of the failure to discover the defect or guard against its possible existence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Sandford was driving a pickup truck equipped with a tire manufactured by Uniroyal, Inc. and mounted by The Tire Factory.
- The tire was allegedly defective, causing the pickup truck to overturn and catch fire.
- Sandford suffered extensive burns as a result of the accident.
- A power steering unit had recently been installed in the truck.
- Sandford had driven the truck with the new power steering only once before the day of the accident, at a time when the truck was not heavily loaded.
- At the time of the accident, the truck was fully loaded for a camping trip.
- Just before the accident, the vehicle began swaying and weaving on the highway before it rolled over.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Sandford sued defendants Uniroyal, Inc. and The Tire Factory in a state trial court for damages from injuries caused by an allegedly defective tire.
- Over Sandford's objections, the trial court instructed the jury to consider her comparative fault.
- The jury returned a verdict finding defendants 55% at fault and Sandford 45% at fault, reducing her damage award accordingly.
- The trial court denied a defense motion to poll the jury on each question of the special verdict.
- Sandford, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that ordinary contributory negligence does not reduce recovery in a products liability case, and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not properly polled.
- The Oregon Supreme Court (highest court) granted the defendants' petition for review.
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 Oregon's proportionate fault statute, ORS 18.470, permit a plaintiff's recovery in a strict products liability action to be reduced by the plaintiff's own ordinary contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's recovery in a strict products liability action can be reduced by their own contributory negligence. The court reasoned that the 1975 amendment to Oregon's proportionate fault statute, ORS 18.470, which replaced the term 'negligence' with 'fault' and removed the limitation to 'negligence actions,' extended the principle of comparative fault to strict products liability claims. The 'fault' of the defendant lies in marketing a dangerously defective product, and this can be compared with the 'fault' of the plaintiff, which includes their ordinary negligence. However, the court established an exception: a user’s negligence consisting of an 'unobservant, inattentive, ignorant, or awkward failure to discover the defect or to guard against it' is not to be compared, as this is the type of conduct that makes a product dangerously defective in the first place.
Concurring - Peterson, J.
Yes, but the majority's reasoning goes too far. The concurring opinion agrees with the ultimate conclusion that plaintiff's contributory negligence can be compared in a strict liability action. However, it strongly criticizes Part III of the majority opinion, which details the specific method for quantifying and comparing fault. The concurrence argues this section is an unnecessary 'advisory opinion' because the issue of how to apportion fault was never raised, briefed, or argued by the parties. The justice warns that creating such a complex, significant rule of law without adversarial input is improper and will likely create confusion for trial courts and juries.
Analysis:
This decision significantly integrated the doctrines of strict products liability and comparative fault in Oregon. By allowing a plaintiff's ordinary negligence to reduce recovery, the court moved beyond the narrower, pre-existing defense of implied assumption of the risk. The case establishes a specific analytical framework for comparing two conceptually different types of 'fault': the manufacturer's fault in distributing a defective product and the user's fault in their own negligent conduct. This framework, focusing on the degree of each party's departure from a normative standard rather than causation, set a new precedent for how such mixed-theory cases would be litigated and instructed to juries in the state.
