525 P.2d 1033, 1036 (Or. 1974)
Plaintiff, an employee of Pope and Talbot, a wood products manufacturer, was injured while feeding fiberboard into a sanding machine that his employer had purchased from defendant Kimwood Machine Co.1 Plaintiff sued defendant on a products liability theory, alleging that the machine was unreasonably dangerous due to defective design.2 At the close of testimony, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and plaintiff appealed.3
The sanding machine was a six-headed sander with belts revolving opposite to the movement of the fiberboard.4 The top half of the machine could be raised or lowered depending upon the thickness of the fiberboard to be sanded.5 The top half of the machine had pinch rolls, not powered, which, when pressed down on the fiberboard by use of springs, kept the sanding heads from forcefully rejecting it from the machine.6 The bottom half of the machine had powered rollers which moved the fiberboard through the machine as the fiberboard was being sanded.7
On the day of the accident, extra thick sheets caused by a defective press required raising the top half of the machine.8 During the sanding of the extra thick sheets, a thin sheet of fiberboard, which had become mixed with the lot, was inserted into the machine.9 The pressure exerted by the pinch rolls in the top half of the machine was insufficient to counteract the pressure which the sanding belts were exerting upon the thin sheet of fiberboard and, as a result, the machine regurgitated the piece of fiberboard back at plaintiff, hitting him in the abdomen and causing him the injuries for which he now seeks compensation.10
Plaintiff presented evidence that at a relatively small expense there could have been built into, or subsequently installed on, the machine a line of metal teeth which would point in the direction that the fiberboard progresses through the machine and which would press lightly against the sheet but which, in case of attempted regurgitation, would be jammed into it, thus stopping its backward motion.11 The evidence also showed that after the accident such teeth were installed upon the machine for that purpose by Pope and Talbot, whereupon subsequent regurgitations of thin fiberboard sheets were prevented while the efficiency of the machine was maintained.12 There was also evidence that defendant makes smaller sanders which usually are manually fed and on which there is such a safety device.13
It was shown that the machine in question was built for use with an automatic feeder and that the one installed at Pope and Talbot is the only six-headed sander manufactured by defendant which is manually fed.14 There also was testimony that at the time of the purchase by Pope and Talbot, defendant had automatic feeders for sale but that Pope and Talbot did not purchase or show any interest in such a feeder.15 Pope and Talbot furnished a feeding device of their own manufacture for the machine which was partially automatic and partially manual but which, the jury could find, at times placed an employee in the way of regurgitated sheets.16 There was testimony that at the time defendant's employee inspected the installation of the machine purchased by Pope and Talbot, which inspection was required by their contract, the inspecting employee became aware that the machine was being manually fed.17 There was no testimony of any warning given by defendant of the danger concerning regurgitated sheets to a person manually feeding the machine.18 The Supreme Court of Oregon heard the appeal from the directed verdict.19
Whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict to the defendant at the close of evidence in this products liability action?20
In a products liability action alleging defective design, the court determines whether a submissible case has been made out by weighing several factors.21 These factors include the usefulness and desirability of the product.22 They also include the safety aspects of the product, such as the likelihood that it will cause injury and the probable seriousness of the injury.23 Additional factors are the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe.24 The court also considers the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility.25 Further factors include the user's ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product and the user's anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability. The final factor is the feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.26 If a submissible case exists, the issue of whether the product is dangerously defective is submitted to the jury.27 The jury receives instructions defining a dangerously defective product under the reasonable man rule.28
No. The established facts demonstrate that plaintiff was injured when a thin sheet of fiberboard was regurgitated from the six-headed sander after the top half had been raised to accommodate extra-thick sheets caused by a defective press at Pope and Talbot.29 The machine had been designed for use with an automatic feeder.30 Defendant's employee inspected the installation and observed manual feeding without providing any warning of the regurgitation risk or recommending safety devices.31 Evidence established that metal teeth could have been installed at relatively small expense to prevent backward motion of sheets.32 Such teeth were in fact added after the accident by Pope and Talbot, stopping subsequent regurgitations while preserving efficiency.33 Defendant also manufactured smaller sanders equipped with similar safety devices for manual feeding.34
These facts, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, permitted a jury to find that a reasonably prudent manufacturer with constructive knowledge of the propensity to regurgitate thin sheets when set for thick ones would not have sold the machine without a warning or safety device.35 This rendered the product dangerously defective under the test for unreasonable danger.36
The trial court therefore erred in granting the directed verdict, and the judgment must be reversed with the case remanded for a new trial.37
Whether evidence concerning the sanding machine's design, the availability of safety devices, and post-accident modifications was sufficient to create a jury question on whether the product was unreasonably dangerous?38
Evidence is sufficient to create a jury question on whether a product is unreasonably dangerous due to defective design when it shows that a reasonably prudent manufacturer, knowing of the risk that materialized and injured the plaintiff, would not have designed and sold the article in that condition.39 The analysis takes into account the surrounding circumstances and knowledge at the time of sale.40 This includes the feasibility of incorporating safety features at modest cost without impairing the product's utility.41
Yes. The established facts include testimony that metal teeth pointing in the direction of material flow could have been built into or added to the machine at relatively small expense to jam into any regurgitated sheet and stop its backward motion.42 After the accident Pope and Talbot installed such teeth, which prevented further regurgitations of thin sheets while maintaining the machine's efficiency.43 Defendant produced smaller sanders that incorporated similar safety devices when intended for manual feeding.44
The six-headed sander at issue was the only one manufactured by defendant that was manually fed, yet it lacked any such device despite the known risk that pinch rolls might fail to counteract the sanding belts' pressure on thin sheets when the top half was raised.45 This evidence directly supports a jury finding that the design was unreasonably dangerous because a reasonable manufacturer with knowledge of the regurgitation propensity would have included or recommended the safety feature.46
The evidence was therefore sufficient to submit the question of unreasonable dangerousness to the jury rather than directing a verdict for defendant.47
Whether the defendant's failure to warn Pope and Talbot about the risks of manual feeding and regurgitation of sheets could support a finding that the machine was dangerously defective?48
A product may be found dangerously defective under strict liability when it is sold without a warning of dangers that a reasonable manufacturer with constructive knowledge of the product's harmful propensities would have provided.49 This holds even if the manufacturer acted reasonably in light of what it actually knew or should have known at the time of sale.50 The focus remains on the dangerous condition of the article as sold rather than the seller's culpability.51
Yes. The established facts show that defendant's employee inspected the installation and became aware that the machine was being manually fed, yet no warning was given concerning the danger of regurgitated sheets to a person in that position.52 No recommendation was made that an automatic feeder be used or that safety devices be added if manual feeding occurred.53 Although defendant had automatic feeders available for sale, Pope and Talbot received no instruction that the machine was built exclusively for such feeders or that manual feeding without additional safeguards created a specific risk of injury from thin sheets being ejected.54
Under the strict liability standard, the absence of any such warning rendered the machine dangerously defective because a manufacturer with constructive knowledge of the regurgitation risk would have warned the purchaser either to feed the machine automatically or to install protective devices.55
Defendant's failure to warn therefore provided an independent basis on which the jury could find the product dangerously defective.56
Whether Pope and Talbot's use of the machine without an automatic feeder and its adjustment of the top half during operation constituted misuse that would bar recovery as a matter of law?57
Misuse does not bar recovery as a matter of law in a strict products liability action when the evidence permits a jury to find that the product was dangerously defective even in the absence of the claimed misuse.58 The same result follows when the danger arising from the particular use was one about which the manufacturer should have warned.59 The product is thereby rendered defective regardless of whether the user followed all instructions given.60
No. The established facts indicate that Pope and Talbot used its own partially automatic and partially manual feeding device and raised the top half of the sander to accommodate extra-thick sheets caused by a press malfunction.61 Defendant's inspector had advised that the top half should not be raised while material was being run, but the danger of regurgitation from doing so was never explained.62 The testimony permitted the jury to conclude that the accident would have occurred whether the top was set for a specific thickness or was in the process of being raised, and that the thin sheet mixed among the thick ones would still have been ejected due to insufficient pinch-roll pressure.63 Because no warning about the specific regurgitation hazard of manual feeding or top adjustment was ever given, the jury could find that any misuse did not preclude liability and that the machine remained dangerously defective.64
Pope and Talbot's operation of the machine therefore did not constitute misuse that barred recovery as a matter of law, and the issue was properly one for the jury.65