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
- Whether the jury instructions correctly stated strict products liability standards, including what makes a product “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous.”
- 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.
- 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.