Weems v. CBS Imports Corp.
Decision Date | 09 June 1980 |
Docket Number | Nos. 77-7079,s. 77-7079 |
Citation | 46 Or.App. 539,612 P.2d 323 |
Parties | Patrick WEEMS, Respondent, v. CBS IMPORTS CORPORATION; Unishop M & B of Oregon, Inc.; and Payless Drug Stores N. W., Inc., Appellants, Does I through X, including each and every number between I and X, inclusive; Black Company and White Company and Red Company, Defendants, (two cases). ; CA 14274, 77-6828; CA 14275. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Darst B. Atherly, Eugene, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were George A. Burgott, and Thwing, Atherly & Butler, Eugene.
Mickie E. Jarvill, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Jarvill & Jarvill, Eugene.
Before BUTTLER, P. J., and GILLETTE and ROBERTS, JJ.
Defendants appeal from the judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in an action for personal injuries based on strict liability in tort. The only question presented is whether the trial court committed reversible error in giving a jury instruction. We conclude that it did, and reverse.
Plaintiff, then 13 years old, was injured when the recently-acquired cotton flannel pajamas he was wearing caught fire as he sat about 18 inches in front of the glass-enclosed fireplace in his home. Defendants manufactured, distributed and sold the pajamas. Although the complaint alleged four theories of liability in separate counts, all but the strict liability count were dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case.
The case was tried on a design defect theory and was intended to be submitted to the jury on that theory. Both parties presented expert testimony as to the flammability of cotton flannel and the feasibility and cost of adding a flame retardant to reduce the danger of the material catching fire and reduce the speed with which it would burn.
The only error assigned on appeal is the trial court's including in its instructions to the jury subsection 3 of Uniform Jury Instruction 170.02. That instruction, in its entirety, states:
The trial court deleted subsection 1, but gave subsections 2 and 3. The court went on to instruct the jury as follows:
Defendants excepted to the giving of subsection 3 of the Uniform Instructions, claiming that it was not appropriate in a design defect case.
Uniform Instruction 170.02 comes directly from Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 248 Or. 467, 435 P.2d 806 (1967), in which this state adopted strict liability as defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). 1 However, strict liability cases decided subsequently have tended to ignore Heaton, and it is by no means clear whether the third category (other than defect in design or manufacture) is alive and well.
In Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., 269 Or. 485, 525 P.2d 1033 (1974), the Supreme Court adopted what appears to be a different test for imposing strict liability:
269 Or. at 491-92, 525 P.2d at 1036. (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.)
The test announced in Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., supra, is the test applied in subsequent strict liability cases in this state to determine whether the product was defective in design. See, e. g., Harding v. Kimwood Corporation, 275 Or. 373, 551 P.2d 107 (1976); Myers v. Cessna Aircraft, 275 Or. 501, 553 P.2d 355 (1976); Newman v. Utility Trailer, 278 Or. 395, 564 P.2d 674 (1977); Baccelleri v. Hyster Co., 287 Or. 3, 597 P.2d 351 (1979).
The trial court correctly instructed the jury as to that test and the evidence is sufficient to permit a jury to find that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would not have manufactured and sold cotton flannel pajamas without a flame retardant if it had knowledge (regardless of whether such knowledge was actually possessed) of flammable characteristics of that fabric and the risks involved. See Harding v. Kimwood Corporation, supra, 275 Or. at 378, 551 P.2d 107. However, by instructing the jury that a product may be shown to be defective by its "(f)ailure to perform safely under circumstances in which, from common knowledge, the average user reasonably could have expected the product to perform safely" the jury was permitted to find the pajamas defective without regard to the conflicting expert testimony relating to the fabric's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willamette Essential Oils, Inc. v. Herrold & Jensen Implement Co.
...which, from common knowledge, the average user reasonably could have expected the product to perform safely." 3 See Weems v. CBS Imports, 46 Or.App. 539, 541, 612 P.2d 323, rev. den. 289 Or. 659 (1980). In the cases that followed, it was not clear what test was applicable to determine wheth......
-
Gunstone v. Julius Blum GMbH.a-6873
...defect. See, e.g., Helms v. Halton Tractor, 66 Or.App. 890, 676 P.2d 347, rev. den. 297 Or. 82, 679 P.2d 1367 (1984); Weems v. CBS Imports, 46 Or.App. 539, 612 P.2d 323, rev. den. 289 Or. 659 (1980). Here, plaintiff alleged and offered evidence of specific defects in defendant's product and......
-
Barry v. Don Hall Laboratories
...§ 402A, comment i. Moreover, part two of the requested instruction is similar to an instruction we found erroneous in Weems v. CBS Imports, 46 Or.App. 539, 612 P.2d 323, rev. den. 289 Or. 659 (1980). Although the facts of this case are not identical to those in Weems, we conclude that the r......
-
Hall v. General Motors Corp.
...appellate decisions have cast doubt on the viability of the general defect theory. The first of these decisions is Weems v. CBS Imports Corp., 612 P.2d 323 (Or.Ct.App.), rev. denied, 289 Or. 659 (1980). In Weems, a manufacturer of cotton pajamas appealed a verdict for a plaintiff who was in......