Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., s. A8309
Decision Date | 19 April 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. A8309,s. A8309 |
Citation | 72 Or.App. 268,696 P.2d 1 |
Parties | Leonard F. MARINELLI, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Marv Tonkin Ford Sales, Inc., Owen Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., Respondents, and Rodney Stephen, Adel Matar, M.D., and Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, dba Emanuel Hospital, Defendants. 06099; CA A31727. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
J. Randolph Pickett, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Ron D. Bailey and Sandra A. Hansberger, Portland.
Mildred J. Carmack, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Ford Motor Company. With her on the brief were Roland F. Banks, Jr., Ancer L. Haggerty, and Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
Lee Aronson, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Marv Tonkin Ford Sales, Inc., and Owen Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. With him on the brief was Holmes, DeFranco & Schulte, P.C., Portland.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and WARDEN and NEWMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendants Ford Motor Company, Marv Tonkin Ford Sales and Owens Chevrolet-Olds, contending that their activities in connection with the design, manufacture, sale, testing and inspection of a pickup truck contributed to plaintiff's injuries when an accident occurred while he was a passenger in the vehicle. Plaintiff stated claims for strict liability and negligence. The vehicle was "first purchased for use or consumption," ORS 30.905(1), in October, 1974. 1 Plaintiff was injured in February, 1983. The trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by ORS 30.905(1), the eight-year statute of ultimate repose for "product liability civil actions." Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. 2
ORS 30.905(1) provides:
"Notwithstanding ORS 12.115 or 12.140 and except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a product liability civil action shall be commenced not later than eight years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption."
ORS 30.900 states:
Both provisions were enacted by Oregon Laws 1977, chapter 843. Section 5 of that act provides:
"This Act takes effect on January 1, 1978, and applies only to causes of action, claims, rights or liabilities accruing after December 31, 1977."
Plaintiff argues in the first assignment of error that, although he was injured after the 1977 act took effect, the act should not be construed to apply to an action involving a product that was sold to a consumer in 1974. The first point plaintiff makes is that "the Oregon Supreme Court has indicated a reluctance to apply statutes retroactively," citing, e.g., Joseph v. Lowery, 261 Or. 545, 495 P.2d 273 (1972). However, the principle that retroactive application of statutes that affect substantive rights is not preferred has little if any relevance to the interpretation of a statute that specifies the time when it becomes applicable. See Whipple v. Howser, 291 Or. 475, 632 P.2d 782 (1981). The statute here specifies that it applies "to causes of action, claims, rights or liabilities accruing after December 31, 1977."
Plaintiff acknowledges that his cause of action did not accrue until the accident occurred in 1983. He contends, however, that he had "rights" and "claims" and that defendants had "liabilities" that existed as of the time the vehicle was initially sold in 1974. Plaintiff refers to the Supreme Court's statement in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 248 Or. 467, 471, 435 P.2d 806 (1967), that
"* * * [t]he user has the right to expect a reasonably safe design and reasonable quality controls in fabrication according to that design. * * * " (Emphasis supplied.)
Plaintiff concludes:
Defendants argue, in effect, that the terms "causes of action," "claims," "rights" and "liabilities," as used in Oregon Laws 1977, chapter 843, section 5, refer to interests that arise from injuries or that relate to litigation that has been or can be brought. According to defendants, the terms do not encompass an owner's or user's abstract interests in the safety of a product that was purchased before January 1, 1978, but had produced no injury by that date. Ford states in its brief:
(Emphasis Ford's; footnote omitted.)
Plaintiff replies:
Plaintiff is correct in maintaining that "claims," "rights" and "liabilities" presumably mean something different than "cause of action." However, we do not agree with plaintiff's understanding of what they mean. The four terms are used in the same statutory context and, of the four, only the word "rights" could--at least from an abstract definitional standpoint--refer to something that "accrues" before there is an injury or a basis for bringing an action. The word could also refer to rights that arise out of an injury or to litigation-related rights. We conclude that, like the words that surround it in the statute, the legislature intended the word "rights" to have the latter meaning. In addition to the context of section 5 itself, the act as a whole militates toward that conclusion. All of the substantive provisions of the act relate to litigation or to the allowable time for bringing an action in a product liability case. We do not think that the legislature intended a single word in the section of the act that prescribes its effective date to refer to the non-occurrence of an event that must have occurred before any other word in the act can have any meaning. We disagree with plaintiff's argument that ORS 30.905(1) cannot apply to actions involving products that were first purchased for use or consumption before January 1, 1978, and we therefore reject his first assignment of error.
Plaintiff's second assignment is that the trial court erred by dismissing his negligence claims on the basis of ORS 30.905(1). Plaintiff argues that the statute applies only to allegations of strict liability in tort. Defendants argue, inter alia, that the term "product liability civil action," as defined by ORS 30.900, embraces all theories a plaintiff can adduce in an action based on a product defect. 3 Defendants' argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.
...and Bancorp Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Agusta Aviation, 813 F.2d 272 (9th Cir.1987).10 We addressed similar issues in Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or. App. 268, 696 P.2d 1, rev. den. 299 Or. 251, 701 P.2d 784 (1985). In Marinelli, the plaintiff's complaint stated claims for strict liability......
-
Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc.
...found that ORS § 30.900 includes all theories a plaintiff may bring in an action based on a product defect. See Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or.App. 268, 273, 696 P.2d 1,rev. den.,299 Or. 251, 701 P.2d 784 (1985). Consequently, Oregon product liability law is controlling here, and it doe......
-
Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Aviation Corp., 85-4286
...and wanton and willful misconduct. See Russell v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Or. 587, 575 P.2d 1383, 1387 (1978); Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or.App. 268, 696 P.2d 1, rev. denied, 299 Or. 251, 701 P.2d 784 (1985). There, we approved the district court's determination that the Oregon legislatur......
-
Mason v. Mt. St. Joseph, Inc.
...the gravamen of a claim is a product defect, the statutory scheme that pertains to defective products applies); Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or.App. 268, 273, 696 P.2d 1, rev. den., 299 Or. 251, 701 P.2d 784 (1985) (accepting view that "the term `product liability civil action,' as defin......
-
CHAPTER 15
...(2016).[3] Id.[4] J. O'Reilly & M. Young, Medical Malpractice (ABA Press 2015). [5] See Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Ore. App. 268, 273, 696 P.2d 1 (1985) (noting ORS 30.905 encompasses all theories a plaintiff can adduce in an action based on a product defect).[6] See Thiele v. Faygo Be......
-
CHAPTER 19
...statutes had not provided their statutory exclusive remedies. --------Notes:[1] See Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Ore. App. 268, 273, 696 P.2d 1 (1985) (noting ORS 30.905 encompasses all theories a plaintiff can adduce in an action based on a product defect).[2] See Thiele v. Faygo Bevera......