“Product liability civil action” defined
Source:
Section 30.900 — “Product liability civil action” defined, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors030.html.
Notes of Decisions
“Product liability civil action,” as defined in this section, embraces all theories plaintiff can adduce in action based on product defect. Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or App 268, 696 P2d 1 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Strict liability in product liability civil actions is limited to sellers and lessors of defective products and does not include non-seller distributors. Johnson v. Water Sausage Corp., 83 Or App 637, 733 P2d 59 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
“Product liability civil actions” means all claims for property damage arising out of a “design, inspection, testing, manufacturing or other defect in a product” and section was applicable even though plaintiffs pleaded strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims. Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Aviation Corp., 813 F2d 272 (1987)
Where custom installation of component parts was necessary to produce finished product, allegation of improper installation was product defect claim. Jamison v. Spencer R.V. Center, Inc., 98 Or App 529, 779 P2d 1091 (1989)
In product liability action brought under this section, article is dangerously defective when in condition unreasonably dangerous to user. Johnson by and through Grandys v. Les Schwab Tire Centers, 766 F. Supp. 1554 (1991)
Although adequate warning on faultlessly-made product will prevent reliance on theory of strict liability in failure-to-warn defect case, product with manufacturing defect cannot be made nondefective simply by placing warning on product. Glover v. BIC Corp., 987 F2d 1410 (1993)
Manufacturer issuance of product warning to learned intermediary does not create defense to strict liability claim. Griffith v. Blatt, 334 Or 456, 51 P3d 1256 (2002)
Where initial failure to warn of known defect occurs prior to sale, continuation of failure to warn after date of sale is not sufficient to state claim independent of product liability civil action. Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 185 Or App 635, 60 P3d 1103 (2003)
For determining whether claim asserts liability for product defect or failure, predominant characteristic of claim, as indicated by operative facts alleged, controls over caption or labeling of claim. Weston v. Camp’s Lumber & Building Supply, Inc., 205 Or App 347, 135 P3d 331 (2006)
Unlawful trade practice claim for misrepresentation of consumer goods and breach of express warranty claim to enforce specific contractual promise are not product liability claims. Weston v. Camp’s Lumber & Building Supply, Inc., 205 Or App 347, 135 P3d 331 (2006)
“Manufacturer”, “distributor” and “seller” have same meanings as in ORS 30.920, including incorporated provisions of Restatement of Torts. Mason v. Mt. St. Joseph, Inc., 226 Or App 392, 203 P3d 329 (2009)
Noncommercial reuse of product does not make person “distributor” of product. Mason v. Mt. St. Joseph, Inc., 226 Or App 392, 203 P3d 329 (2009)
Up to date