Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1978 |
| Parties | Donna WILSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas L. Wilson, Deceased, for the benefit of Donna Wilson, surviving wife of the Deceased, William Lawton Wilson and Pamela Elizabeth Wilson, dependent children of the Deceased, Respondent, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Appellant. Beverly MacDONALD, Personal Representative of the Estate of Arbie D. MacDonald, Deceased, for the benefit of Beverly MacDonald, surviving wife of the Deceased, Joan MacDonald and Sheryl MacDonald, dependent children of the Deceased, Respondent, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Appellant. . * On Respondents' Petition for Rehearing |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Martin Schedler, David W. Harper, Robert B. Hopkins and Keane, Harper, Pearlman & Copeland, Portland, for petition.
Grant T. Anderson, William B. Crow and Miller, Anderson, Nash, Yerke & Weiner, Portland, contra.
In our original opinion in this products liability case we held that a prima facie case of design defect must include evidence which would permit a finding that a safer design would have been practicable. We pointed out that we had not found any cases in which this aspect of plaintiff's prima facie case had been carefully considered. Plaintiff's petition for rehearing brings to our attention a recent decision of the California Supreme Court which holds that a plaintiff's case is sufficient if it shows an injury caused by the defendant's design. Defendant then has the burden of proving that the product was not defective, that is, that the benefits of the challenged design feature outweighed its dangers. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443 (1978). We have considered that decision and do not find it persuasive.
In recent years California's law of products liability and our own have developed along different lines. We regard the Barker decision as additional evidence of those differences. Under that decision it appears that a design defect case will always go to the jury if only the plaintiff can show that the product caused the injury. In this jurisdiction, however, it is part of plaintiff's case to show that a product which caused an injury was dangerously defective. We are satisfied that the position taken in our original opinion was correct.
The other points raised in the petition do not require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co.
...St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267, 270-71 (1977); Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co., 586 P.2d 726, 730-31 (Okl.1978); Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 282 Or. 411, 579 P.2d 1287, 1288 (1978) (rejects Barker in favor of 402A language approved for Oregon in Roach v. Konoven, Supra ); Kennedy v. Custom ......
-
Armentrout v. FMC Corp.
...defect must include evidence which would permit a finding that a safer design would have been practicable." Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 282 Or. 411, 579 P.2d 1287 (1978); see also Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726 (3d Cir.1976) (New Jersey law); Lolie v. Ohio Brass Co., 502 F.2d 741 (7th C......
-
Bispo v. Gsw, Inc.
...143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443 (1978). The Oregon Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Barker opinion. See Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 282 Or. 411, 413, 579 P.2d 1287 (1978). Rather, in Oregon, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the product was both defective and unreasonabl......
-
Rice v. James Hanrahan & Sons
...but not conclusive as to defectiveness); Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 282 Or. 61, 64-65, 577 P.2d 1322 (1977), reh'g denied, 282 Or. 411 (1978) (compliance with government safety standards not complete defense as to defective design).15 See, e.g., Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34-2804(a) (Supp.1983) (......
-
Design defects.
...Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. 1987); Cremeans v. Int'l Harvester Co., 452 N.E.2d 1281 (Ohio 1983); Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 579 P.2d 1287 (Or. 1978) (en banc). See also Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 709 P.2d 876 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc) (by implication); Ray v. BIC Corp., 925 S.W.2d......
-
The Design Defect Test in Washington: the Requisite Balance
...94 N.J. 169, 463 A.2d 298 (1983). 77. Id. at 185, 463 A.2d at 306 (emphasis added). 78. 282 Or. 61, 577 P.2d 1322 (1977), reh'g denied, 282 Or. 411, 579 P.2d 1287 79. Id. at 67-68, 577 P.2d at 1326. 80. Id. at 69, 577 P.2d at 1327. 81. Id. 82. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 7.72 (1983). For a discussi......