Court Opinion

ID: 9552363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:09:37.202634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:13.807938
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring.
I write separately only because I had recused myself in the case of Sandford v. General Motors, 292 Or 590, 642 P2d 624 (1982). In the case at bar I concur in the majority opinion, which follows the decision of this court in Sandford. Had I participated in the decision in that case, I would have joined in the majority opinion except for the rather minor reservation expressed in the next paragraph of this opinion.
The opinion of the court in Sandford, 292 Or at 599, 642 P2d at 629, observes that this court has disavowed risk spreading as the basis of adopting the concept of products liability. It is true that the cases cited for that observation so indicate, but I have previously indicated my doubts as to the clarity of that characterization of this court’s position. See, Allen v. The Heil Company, 285 Or 109, 119, 589 P2d 1120 (1979), footnote 6, concerning the “balancing test” to be used in deciding whether the evidence in a given case presents a question for the trier of fact. As I stated in that footnote, some of the criteria involved in the balancing test are appropriate only if strict products liability is viewed as a risk-spreading device. This case does not require resolution of that question, however, and I join in the majority opinion.