## Facts

- Lloyd D. Johnson worked as a forklift operator at a lumber plant, moving bundles of lumber under time pressure.
- On June 24, 1971, Johnson was feeding a planer and transporting two banded bundles of 2x4s that had to be unbanded before placement.
- Johnson usually dismounted the forklift and cut the bands from the front, sometimes with help from another employee.
- Lacking assistance and hurried, Johnson stayed in the cab and reached through the uprights with cutters to cut the bands.
- While doing so, his body contacted the ascent/descent control lever for the forklift carriage.
- The carriage descended and severed both of Johnson’s arms just below the elbows.
- Johnson sued the forklift’s manufacturer (Clark Equipment Co.) and the seller/distributor (Topline Equipment Co.) on strict products liability, alleging a defective and unreasonably dangerous design under foreseeable workplace conditions.
- A jury returned a verdict for defendants after the trial court instructed on strict liability and assumption of risk; the court refused certain instructions requested by Johnson.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions correctly stated strict products liability standards, including what makes a product “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous.”
2. Whether the assumption-of-risk instruction improperly allowed the jury to bar recovery without requiring proof that Johnson actually knew and appreciated the specific danger and voluntarily encountered it.
3. Whether the instructions improperly treated hurried or careless conduct (or foreseeable workplace misuse) as assumption of risk, effectively importing contributory negligence as a complete defense in strict liability.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the judgment for defendants and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the assumption-of-risk instruction was erroneous and prejudicial because it did not require a finding that Johnson actually appreciated the danger and voluntarily chose to encounter it.
- The court concluded the instructions risked misleading the jury into treating Johnson’s hurried conduct as a complete bar, collapsing assumption of risk into contributory negligence.
- The court indicated the jury should be permitted to consider whether Johnson’s conduct was a foreseeable use or misuse in the industrial setting rather than an automatic defense bar.

## Legal Principles

- In strict products liability, liability turns on whether the product left the seller in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
- “Unreasonably dangerous” is measured by the ordinary consumer’s contemplated danger, given ordinary community knowledge of the product’s characteristics.
- Assumption of risk is a defense in strict products liability only if the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encounters a known danger.
- The defense requires proof of the plaintiff’s actual (subjective) knowledge and appreciation of the specific risk; it is not satisfied by what the plaintiff should have discovered through reasonable care.
- Contributory negligence, standing alone, is not a complete bar to strict products liability; the plaintiff’s conduct bars recovery only when it amounts to true assumption of risk.
- In evaluating assumption of risk and misuse, foreseeable workplace practices and production pressures may bear on whether the plaintiff’s conduct was voluntary risk-taking or foreseeable conduct in the product’s intended environment.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury instructions misstated the limits of assumption of risk in strict products liability and could have caused the jury to treat hurried workplace conduct as a complete defense without requiring proof of a knowing, voluntary encounter with a known danger.


Johnson v. Clark Equip. Co., 274 Or. 403, 547 P.2d 132 (Or. 1976)