Opinion ID: 1293162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: continuing failure to warn

Text: Plaintiff's final argument is that his complaint alleged a negligent continuing failure by TMC to warn of the Landcruiser's defects. If plaintiff is correct, that portion of his complaint would be governed by the two-year negligence statute of limitation, ORS 12.110, and summary judgment would not have been appropriate. TMC responded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, [13] that plaintiff alleged no continuing failure to warn. We agree that plaintiff's complaint did not adequately raise the question of a continuing failure to warn. The closest plaintiff's complaint came to such allegations were the following allegations: [A] proximate cause and/or enhancement of plaintiff's personal injuries was the negligence of defendant [TMC] in one or more of the following particulars:     4. In failing to give adequate warning of the vehicle's dangerous propensity to roll over at low speeds. The only reasonable reading of these allegations is that they refer to an initial failure to warn prior to the first sale of the vehicle; they cannot also be read to include a failure to warn at some later date after the product's defect was discovered. While ORCP 12 A directs that [a]ll pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view of substantial justice between the parties, we would have to rewrite these pleadings, not construe them, to make out a claim of negligent continued failure to warn. The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that this theory had not been adequately pleaded. [14] The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.