Case Name: ASKEW, Appellant, v. HOWARD-COOPER CORPORATION et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1972-10-19
Citations: 263 Or. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: ASKEW, Appellant, v. HOWARD-COOPER CORPORATION et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 184–192

Head Matter:
Argued March 1,
affirmed October 19, 1972
ASKEW, Appellant, v. HOWARD-COOPER CORPORATION et al, Respondents.
502 P2d 210
Wendell E. Gronso, Burns, argued the cause for appellant.
Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondents.
Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.

Opinion:
HOLMAN, J.
Plaintiff was injured while greasing a log lifting and handling machine manufactured by the defendant F. W. D. Wagner, Inc., and sold by the defendant Howard-Cooper Corporation. The complaint alleged both strict liability and negligent design in separate counts. The trial court granted a nonsuit and plaintiff appeals. The issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on either count.
The machine, called a lumberjack, was owned by the Edward Hines Lumber Co., and plaintiff had been employed about four months prior to his injury to operate the machine on the swing shift. Zerk fittings were located all over the machine, which plaintiff was required to lubricate daily by injecting grease into the fittings with a grease gun furnished by the employer.
The machine was on wheels and was mobile. It had two large claws upon a boom which would roll logs onto two blades that protruded from the bottom of the machine. The claws would clasp several logs against the blades and the machine would then move them to where they were required. Plaintiff was instructed by his employer to set the boom in a certain position and then to climb up onto its top for the purpose of greasing the fittings there. With the boom in that position, the fittings were approximately ten feet off the ground.
Plaintiff was injured while descending the boom after he completed greasing the fittings. His foot slipped on a hose coupling and he fell to the ground. Grease and oil tended to accumulate and to make slippery the areas he had to climb and descend in the course of greasing the fittings.
The lumberjack was not equipped with ladders, steps, rails, or other means to climb to the top of the boom. Plaintiff contends that the failure to make the fittings accessible from the ground or to provide some safe means of access to the boom rendered the machine unreasonably dangerous.
The manufacturer of a chattel may be liable in negligence for its faulty design. The Eestatement (Second) of Torts § 398 provides: Routine servicing is unquestionably within the scope of the uses for which a product is manufactured as those words are employed in this section. The "intended use" limitation has been held to be merely an adaptation of the test of foreseeability of the risk. See Otis Elevator Company v. Wood, 436 SW2d 324, 327-28 (Tex. 1968), and cases cited therein.
"A manufacturer of a chattel made under a plan or design which makes it dangerous for the uses for which it is manufactured is subject to liability to others whom he should expect to use the chattel or to be endangered by its probable use for physical harm caused bv his failure to exercise reasonable care in the adoption of a safe plan or design."
We conclude that the evidence does not make a case of negligence against the manufacturer sufficient to submit to the jury. By the admission of plaintiff's own witnesses, the boom could be lowered to a position whereby all but two grease fittings could easily be serviced from the ground. With the boom in its lowest position, the two fittings which plaintiff claims were not accessible were 7 feet 8 inches above the ground. The record contains a picture of plaintiff standing flat-footed with his hand upon one of these two fittings which were at identical heights. However, the two fittings protruded at an upward angle, and, therefore, the grease gun, with the kind of nozzle furnished by plaintiff's employer for the job, had to be placed on the fittings while it was held above them. A solid place to stand, three feet high, like a log, platform, or short ladder, would have solved the problem.
It is our opinion that the manufacture of equipment with grease fittings which are thus safely and easily accessible does not constitute negligence. The manufacturer should not be required to anticipate that the purchaser will direct his employes to follow an obviously dangerous method of servicing equipment (as the purchaser did in the present ease) when safe methods are readily. apparent and available. If the manufacturer was not negligent in making the machine, the immediate seller was not negligent in selling it.
In order to be unreasonably dangerous so as to substantiate strict liability on the part of the seller, it must be shown that "[t]he article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Comment i. (1965).
It is our belief that, as a matter of law, we can say that the community would not condemn a machine as unreasonably dangerous which could be serviced in the manner described and without the necessity of climbing ten feet off the ground.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.