Opinion ID: 1172985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: substantial change

Text: As was stated above, Mortensen must also show that the Captan was expected to and did reach Mortensen without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Chevron sold the Captan in an 80% concentrated form. The evidence reflects that it was not expected that Mortensen would receive the Captan in that form. Independent formulators substantially changed the product by the addition of fillers which reduced the concentration of Captan to 7.5%. The formulator in this case diluted the Captan with fir bark dust. Although Chevron previously had supplied some formulation instructions to the formulator, Snake River, there was no evidence that Chevron had ever recommended the use of fir bark dust as a filler. Nor was there any evidence that Chevron had ever marketed or sold any product containing fir bark. There was no competent and substantial evidence presented to the jury that the product sold by Chevron was expected to and did reach Mortensen without substantial change. The uncontroverted evidence was to the contrary. Accordingly, the trial court erred in not granting Chevron's motion for judgment n.o.v. In view of our ruling on Chevron's appeal, there will be no new trial, and therefore we need not consider respondent's cross-appeal. Costs to appellant Chevron. SHEPARD and BAKES, JJ., concur.