## Facts

- Linda McCathern was injured as a front-seat passenger in a 1994 Toyota 4Runner that rolled over after the driver executed rapid evasive steering maneuvers to avoid another vehicle.
- McCathern alleged the 4Runner was defectively designed because its high center of gravity and relatively narrow track width made it unstable and prone to rollover.
- Plaintiff presented expert testimony comparing the 4Runner’s lateral stability and rollover propensity to other vehicles under foreseeable emergency maneuvers.
- Evidence indicated Toyota understood stability could be improved by widening the track and lowering the center of gravity, and that some consumers associated vehicle height with safety (e.g., visibility) despite stability tradeoffs.
- The case was tried as a design-defect products-liability claim under Oregon law, with evidence directed to consumer expectations and feasibility of safer design choices.
- A jury found for McCathern and awarded $2,250,000 in noneconomic damages and $5,400,000 in economic damages.
- The trial court denied Toyota’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the 1994 Toyota 4Runner defectively designed and “unreasonably dangerous” under Oregon products-liability law.
2. Whether Oregon’s design-defect standard limits proof to lay consumer knowledge, or allows expert and technical evidence (including feasibility and risk evidence) to establish what ordinary consumers would expect.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Toyota’s motions for directed verdict and JNOV based on alleged insufficiency of proof.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court judgment for McCathern.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to find the 4Runner’s design unreasonably dangerous due to rollover propensity in foreseeable emergency maneuvers.
- The court held expert and technical evidence may be used to inform the jury’s determination of ordinary consumer expectations in a design-defect case.
- The court held the trial court properly denied Toyota’s motions for directed verdict and JNOV.

## Legal Principles

- A product is defectively designed under Oregon law if it is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer,” given ordinary community knowledge about the product’s characteristics.
- The consumer-expectations inquiry may be informed by expert and technical evidence that helps the jury assess inherent dangers and whether the danger exceeds what ordinary consumers would anticipate.
- Evidence that resembles risk–utility considerations (e.g., feasibility of safer designs, tradeoffs, and manufacturer knowledge of risks and consumer misconceptions) may be admitted to aid the consumer-expectations determination.
- On review of directed-verdict and JNOV rulings, if the record permits reasonable inferences supporting defect and unreasonable danger, the case remains for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a jury verdict finding a sport-utility vehicle defectively designed based on rollover propensity, holding that Oregon’s consumer-expectations standard is not confined to simple products and may be established through expert testimony and other technical evidence bearing on the risks and available safer design choices.


McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp., 332 Or. 59, 23 P.3d 320 (Or. 2001)