Court Opinion

ID: 9793817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:53:30.193577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:26.918804
License: Public Domain

BRYSON, J.,
dissenting.
This is a defective design case involving a large over-the-road semitrailer which overturned on a curve.
The plaintiffs complaint sought recovery for his injuries on two theories: strict liability in tort and negligent construction and repair of the trailer. The jury, by interrogatories, found the following:
"A. With respect to plaintiffs cause of action in strict liability against the defendants:
"1. Was the trailer in a defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous to users, which condition caused the accident as contended by plaintiff?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"2. Did the plaintiff assume the risk of accident and of injury to himself as contended by the defendants?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"3. Did the plaintiff or a third party misuse the trailer as contended by the defendants, and did such misuse cause the accident?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"B. With respect to plaintiffs causes of action against both defendants for negligence:
"1. Was defendant Utility Equipment negligent in one *406or more of the respects charged in plaintiffs complaint that caused the accident?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"2. Was defendant Utility Manufacturing negligent in one or more of the respects charged in plaintiffs complaint that caused the accident?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"3. Was plaintiff himself negligent in the respect alleged by defendants in their answer which contributed to the accident?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
"4. Did plaintiff assume the risk of injury to himself as contended by the defendants in their answer which caused the accident?
"ANSWER: Yes_ No_X__
* * * * 9?
A verdict was returned in favor of both defendants.
The trial court, after conferences with both attorneys, fully and completely instructed the jury on both of plaintiffs theories of the case; that is, negligence and strict liability.
The plaintiff assigned as error the giving of the following additional instruction:
"A product is said to be defective and unreasonably dangerous when it presents an unreasonable danger when used by persons expected to use it in the ordinary variety of ways in which the manufacturer or seller could reasonably expect it to be used by such persons. By 'reasonably expected’, I simply mean 'foreseeability’. Should the manufacturer or seller have foreseen the harm which the product would cause to the user under the circumstances of the case. Put another way, under the law of strict liability, the law presumes that the manufacturer or seller knows the harmful potential of its product and, therefore, a product is unreasonably dangerous if it is so harmful to users that a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller with this knowledge would not have placed it on the market.”
The majority opinion holds
"* * * that submitting to the jury the issue of *407whether the defendants should have foreseen the harm which their product would cause to the user was erroneous. With this we must agree. In a defective design case the essential difference between a negligence action and a products liability action is that in negligence the foreseeability of the harm by the manufacturer or seller is submitted as a question of fact to the jury, whereas in strict liability the knowledge of the article’s propensity to inflict harm as it did is assumed, regardless of whether the manufacturer or seller foresaw or reasonably should have foreseen the danger.”
However, the court also instructed the jury as follows:
«* * * [U]n(Jer the law of strict liability, the law presumes that the manufacturer or seller knows the harmful potential of its product and, therefore, a product is unreasonably dangerous if it is so harmful to users that a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller with this knowledge would not have placed it on the market.” (Emphasis supplied.)
We have always held that, on appeal, the court’s instructions must be considered as a whole. In Denton v. Arnstein, 197 Or 28, 54, 250 P2d 407 (1952), we stated:
"We have repeatedly held that the instructions of a trial court must be viewed as a whole, and when they are substantially correct and could not have misled the jury to appellant’s prejudice, a judgment will not be reversed because one instruction when considered alone may be subject to criticism, or because a particular requested instruction should have been given. Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, 24, 169 P2d 883; Hornby v. Wiper, 155 Or 203, 211, 63 P2d 204; Dockery v. Gardner, 141 Or 64, 70, 15 P2d 481.”
In Meyers v. Muno, 236 Or 68, 71, 386 P2d 808 (1963), we held:
«* * * While it is true that, standing alone, this instruction might mislead a jury, the instruction must be considered in light of the effect of the instruction as a whole. We find that, viewed as a whole, these instructions adequately inform the jury * *
Attorneys and trial and appellate judges do not *408always understand the "current law” applicable in the trial of product liability cases. We have continually changed the "goalposts” in these cases. To say that the jury understood or misunderstood the one sentence in the entire set of instructions to the detriment of the plaintiff is pure speculation. The jury found, in A1. of its interrogatories, that the trailer was not in a defective condition. If the trailer was not defective by design or otherwise, the plaintiff could not recover and the jury’s verdict is correct and should stand. In other words, the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof. This has nothing to do with the question of the "foreseeability of the harm by the manufacturer or seller.”
We often speak of efficient judicial administration as it affects this court. We should also consider efficient judicial administration as it affects trial courts and the resulting financial burden to litigants. Here the majority would reverse because of one sentence in a complicated set of instructions, and that one sentence can be considered as contrary to a proper instruction given by the trial judge.
I would affirm.