## Facts

- Nelda Hoover’s husband bought four tires from Montgomery Ward; mounting on the rear wheels was included in the purchase.
- After the left rear tire split, he obtained a replacement tire and price adjustment from Montgomery Ward.
- Two Montgomery Ward employees installed the replacement tire on the spare wheel and mounted the wheel on the car.
- Weeks later, Hoover was in a one-car accident; defendants asserted the accident resulted from her loss of control while passing another vehicle.
- Hoover sued Montgomery Ward and the installers for (1) negligence (failure to tighten lug nuts and inspect the wheel attachment) and (2) strict liability (alleging the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous due to defective and improper installation).
- The trial court refused to submit strict liability to the jury; the jury returned a defense verdict on negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether strict products liability applies when the alleged “defect” is improper installation (a service) rather than a defect in the tire or wheel as a product.
2. Whether the evidence required disturbing the jury’s defense verdict on negligence.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed.
- The trial court properly withheld the strict-liability claim from the jury because the alleged dangerous condition arose from installation services, not a defective product placed into commerce.
- The evidence supported the jury’s verdict for defendants on negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon strict products liability applies to products sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
- Strict liability does not extend to alleged defects arising solely from negligent performance of services (such as installation) when no defect in the product itself is claimed.
- Claims based on improper installation are evaluated under negligence principles, and a jury verdict on negligence will be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that improper tire-and-wheel installation is a service-based allegation outside Oregon strict products liability, leaving negligence as the proper theory; because the jury’s defense verdict on negligence was supported by the evidence, the judgment for defendants was affirmed.


Hoover v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 270 Or. 498, 528 P.2d 76 (1974)