## Facts

- Homer O. Phillips, an employee of Pope & Talbot, was injured while feeding fiberboard into a six-headed sanding machine manufactured and sold by Kimwood Machine Company.
- The sander used opposing moving sanding belts and relied on nonpowered “pinch rolls” to hold stock down and prevent the belts from expelling the material back toward the operator.
- Pope & Talbot received a batch of unusually thick fiberboard, and the top portion of the machine was raised to accommodate it.
- A thinner sheet became mixed into the batch and was fed into the machine during the adjusted setup.
- The pinch rolls did not apply sufficient pressure for the thin sheet, and the machine expelled (“regurgitated”) the sheet back toward Phillips, striking him and causing injury.
- Phillips alleged the sander was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it could eject panels toward the operator and lacked adequate safety devices and warnings.
- Evidence showed Kimwood used anti-kickback “metal teeth” or “fingers” on similar machines designed for manual feeding and that such protection could be added at relatively low cost.
- Although the model at issue was built for automatic feeders, Kimwood knew Pope & Talbot was using a partially manual feeding system and nonetheless supplied no anti-kickback protection or warning for that foreseeable use.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find the sanding machine “dangerously defective” and “unreasonably dangerous” in design (including absence of anti-kickback protection and/or warnings) under strict products liability.
2. What standard governs “unreasonably dangerous” in strict-liability design-defect claims: a reasonable-manufacturer (risk–utility) inquiry rather than a consumer-expectations-only approach.
3. Whether the trial court erred by directing a verdict for the manufacturer instead of submitting the design-defect and warning issues to the jury.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict for Kimwood and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the product dangerously defective and unreasonably dangerous due to design and inadequate warnings.
- The court adopted a formulation for design-defect strict liability asking whether a reasonable manufacturer, with knowledge of the product’s harmful characteristics, would market it without changes, safeguards, or warnings.
- The court concluded that Kimwood’s knowledge of the partially manual feeding method, combined with the seriousness of the hazard and the feasibility of low-cost anti-kickback protection, created a jury question.

## Legal Principles

- In strict-liability design-defect cases, the focus is on the condition of the product, not on proving the seller’s actual negligent conduct.
- “Unreasonably dangerous” may be evaluated by whether a reasonable manufacturer would put the product into commerce if fully aware of its harmful characteristics; strict liability is not absolute liability.
- A product may be found dangerously defective when foreseeable uses create serious hazards that could be reduced by feasible, relatively low-cost safety devices or adequate warnings.
- A directed verdict is improper when the evidence allows reasonable jurors to find that the product’s design or warnings rendered it dangerously defective.

## Conclusion

The court held that the design-defect strict-liability claim should have gone to the jury because a reasonable manufacturer, knowing the kickback risk under the buyer’s foreseeable partially manual feeding use, could be found to have marketed an unreasonably dangerous machine without needed safety protection or warnings.


Phillips v. Kimwood Mach. Co., 269 Or. 485, 525 P.2d 1033 (1974)