## Facts

- Martin May bought a new Jeep from Portland Jeep, Inc., with a roll bar installed by the dealer.
- The roll bar was bolted through the tops of the rear wheel wells, which were attached to the vehicle body only by spot welds.
- While driving on a sand dike near the Columbia River, the Jeep crested the dike and started down the steeper river side at about 8–10 mph.
- The Jeep’s front end dug into the sand, and the vehicle flipped forward and landed upside down.
- The rollover forces tore metal at the spot-weld points, causing the wheel wells to collapse onto the tires and pulling the roll bar down.
- The roll bar came down across the back of May’s neck, forcing his face into the steering wheel while he was restrained by a seat belt.
- May suffered injuries to his teeth, mouth, neck, back, chest, and one leg.
- May sued in strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, alleging a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition in the roll bar mounting and supporting structure.
- A jury returned a verdict for May; the dealer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of defect/unreasonable danger and causation, and sought nonsuit or a directed verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the Jeep, as sold with a roll bar mounted through spot-welded wheel wells, was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the alleged defect caused May’s injuries, including by increasing their severity (enhanced-injury theory).

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for May.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury whether the roll bar mounting rendered the Jeep defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the roll bar collapse was a substantial factor in causing May’s injuries and increasing their severity.
- The trial court properly denied the dealer’s motions for nonsuit and directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a plaintiff must prove the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when sold and that the condition caused the injury.
- In reviewing denial of a nonsuit or directed verdict after a plaintiff’s verdict, the evidence is viewed most favorably to the prevailing party, with reasonable inferences for the jury.
- Expert testimony on how a safety-related component should perform in a foreseeable accident scenario, combined with evidence of actual failure, can support a jury finding of defect and unreasonable danger.
- In automobile product cases, strict liability may attach where a defect does not cause the accident but causes injury or enhances injury severity during the accident; causation may be shown by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from the mechanics of failure and the injury pattern.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a strict products liability verdict because the jury could reasonably find that the dealer-installed roll bar was defectively mounted through weak, spot-welded wheel wells, and that the resulting collapse during a foreseeable rollover was a substantial factor in causing and worsening the plaintiff’s injuries.


May v. Portland Jeep, Inc., 265 Or. 307, 509 P.2d 24 (Or. 1973)