Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sandford v. Chevrolet Division of General Motorsgreen2 sentences1982Motors, 292 Or 590 , 642 P2d 624 (1982): “* * * When an injured claimant’s misconduct is a cause in fact of the injury, it can defeat a products liability claim if the claimant’s fault is ‘greater than’ the defendants’ combined fault involved in marketing the defective product. 1982Motors, 292 Or 590 , 642 P2d 624 (1982): “* * * When an injured claimant’s misconduct is a cause in fact of the injury, it can defeat a products liability claim if the claimant’s fault is ‘greater than’ the defendants’ combined fault involved in marketing the defective product. | 1 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Barbo MacHinery Co.green2 sentences2022See Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 109 , 957 P2d 147 (1998) (rejecting the validity of a comparative-fault *440 defense to a products liability claim where the law long established that a plaintiff’s “incidental carelessness or negligent failure to discover or guard against a product defect is not an appropriate defense” to the plaintiff’s action for injuries arising from the defective product, but acknowledging the defense’s application in other limited circumstances where the plaintiff’s fault is a defense). 2022See Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 109 , 957 P2d 147 (1998) (rejecting the validity of a comparative-fault *440 defense to a products liability claim where the law long established that a plaintiff’s “incidental carelessness or negligent failure to discover or guard against a product defect is not an appropriate defense” to the plaintiff’s action for injuries arising from the defective product, but acknowledging the defense’s application in other limited circumstances where the plaintiff’s fault is a defense). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. PeaceHealthgreen1 sentence2014See Hughes, 344 Or at 156 . | 1 | 1 |
Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Companygreen2 sentences2001See Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 279 , 512 P2d 776 (1973) (applying two-year statute of limitations to product liability claim). 2001See Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 279 , 512 P2d 776 (1973) (applying two-year statute of limitations to product liability claim). | 1 | 1 |
Ramco, Inc. v. PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANYgreen1 sentence1996See Ramco, 249 Or at 669 (“Generally, the definition of the word ‘accident’ in our decision in Finley v. Prudential Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. International Harvester Co.
green
2 sentences2016Although both ORS 30.920 and Restatement section 402A speak in terms of a product’s danger to a “user or consumer,” a nonuser or non-consumer injured by an unreasonably dangerous defective product also is entitled to pursue a products liability claim under ORS 30.920 under Osborne v. International Harvester Co., 69 Or App 629, 639-40 , 688 P2d 390 (1984). 2016Although both ORS 30.920 and Restatement section 402A speak in terms of a product’s danger to a “user or consumer,” a nonuser or non-consumer injured by an unreasonably dangerous defective product also is entitled to pursue a products liability claim under ORS 30.920 under Osborne v. International Harvester Co., 69 Or App 629, 639-40 , 688 P2d 390 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Eldridge v. Eastmoreland General Hospital
yellow
2 sentences2001We held in Korbut that the plaintiffs argument that the limitation period for his action should be extended by the discoveiy rule was controlled by the court’s holding in Eldridge v. Eastmoreland General Hospital, 307 Or 500 , 769 P2d 775 (1989). 3 In that case, which did not involve a products liability claim, the Supreme Court decided that the legislature did not intend that the discovery rule apply to wrongful death actions subject to ORS 30.020. 2001We held in Korbut that the plaintiffs argument that the limitation period for his action should be extended by the discoveiy rule was controlled by the court’s holding in Eldridge v. Eastmoreland General Hospital, 307 Or 500 , 769 P2d 775 (1989). 3 In that case, which did not involve a products liability claim, the Supreme Court decided that the legislature did not intend that the discovery rule apply to wrongful death actions subject to ORS 30.020. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Anderson v. Klix Chemical Co.
yellow
2 sentences1982Cf. Anderson v. Klix Chemical, 256 Or 199, 208-209 , 472 P2d 806 (1970), recognizing “misuse” as a defense to a products liability claim before the enactment of ORS 18.470 and 18.475, at a time when the status of contributory negligence as a defense was unsettled. 1982Cf. Anderson v. Klix Chemical, 256 Or 199, 208-209 , 472 P2d 806 (1970), recognizing “misuse” as a defense to a products liability claim before the enactment of ORS 18.470 and 18.475, at a time when the status of contributory negligence as a defense was unsettled. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.