## Facts

- Burrell H. Findlay, a masonry contractor, bought an aluminum extension ladder manufactured by R.D. Werner Co., Inc. from Copeland Lumber Company.
- About 14 months later, while Findlay was using the ladder for work, it collapsed and he fell and was injured.
- Findlay alleged a manufacturing defect: a rivet hole in a side rail was drilled off-center, reducing the ladder’s load-bearing capacity.
- A metallurgical expert testified the off-center rivet left insufficient metal cross-section, making the ladder unsafe and defective.
- Defendants disputed causation, contending the misaligned rivet hole did not cause the collapse and suggesting user placement and use caused the accident.
- The case was tried to a jury on (1) strict products liability against the manufacturer and retailer and (2) negligence against the manufacturer.
- Over objection, the trial court instructed that Findlay could not recover on strict liability if his own negligence (e.g., uneven placement, failure to test stability, over-balance, failure to keep a lookout) was a proximate cause of the accident.
- The jury returned a verdict for both defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether contributory negligence is a complete defense to a strict products liability claim when the plaintiff’s conduct consists of failure to discover a defect, failure to guard against its possibility, or ordinary negligence in use.
2. Whether the challenged instruction improperly treated ordinary contributory negligence as a bar, rather than limiting plaintiff-fault defenses to assumption of risk or abnormal misuse.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- Contributory negligence, as framed by the instruction, is not a defense to strict products liability.
- The instruction was reversible error because it permitted a defense verdict on strict liability based on ordinary negligence without requiring knowledge of the defect and voluntary exposure to a known danger.

## Legal Principles

- In strict products liability, a plaintiff’s failure to discover a defect or guard against the possibility of its existence does not bar recovery.
- Ordinary negligence in using a product is not a complete defense to strict products liability.
- Defenses consistent with strict products liability include assumption of risk (knowing and voluntary, unreasonable encounter with a known danger) and abnormal misuse.
- A jury instruction that bars strict liability recovery based on ordinary contributory negligence is legally erroneous and prejudicial when it may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because the jury was told it could deny strict products liability recovery if the plaintiff’s ordinary negligence contributed to the accident; strict liability instead permits plaintiff-fault defenses only where the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably encounters a known defect or engages in abnormal misuse.


Findlay v. Copeland Lumber Co., 509 P.2d 28 (Or. 1973)