Facts
- Mildred Sandford was driving a pickup truck that overturned and caught fire, causing extensive burns.
- She sued the manufacturer and seller entities connected to the truck and alleged a defective tire manufactured by Uniroyal, Inc. and mounted/sold by The Tire Factory contributed to the accident.
- Defendants alleged Sandford’s own negligence contributed to causing her injuries.
- Over Sandford’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury to reduce or deny damages if her injuries resulted in part or predominantly from her own fault.
- The jury apportioned fault at 55% to Uniroyal/The Tire Factory and 45% to Sandford and reduced damages accordingly.
- Evidence supported an inference that Sandford’s unfamiliarity with the vehicle’s handling could have contributed to the rollover.
- After a lengthy trial and use of a complex special verdict form, the trial court declined to poll jurors individually on a key special-verdict answer concerning fault allocation.
Issues
- Whether Oregon’s comparative-fault statute (ORS 18.470) permits comparing a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence with defendants’ responsibility for marketing a dangerously defective product, reducing recovery in a strict products-liability case.
- Whether the trial court’s refusal to poll jurors individually on a key special-verdict question required a new trial.
Decision
- The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORS 18.470 requires the factfinder to compare the plaintiff’s fault with defendants’ fault in marketing the defective product and to reduce damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault.
- The court rejected the rule that a plaintiff’s ordinary contributory negligence is categorically irrelevant in strict products-liability cases.
- The court concluded there was evidence from which the jury could find Sandford’s conduct negligent and causally related to the accident, making submission of comparative fault permissible in principle.
- The court agreed that the jury-polling procedure was inadequate for the special verdict and that this error required a new trial.
- The court affirmed the appellate result reversing and remanded for a new trial, while correcting the appellate court’s comparative-fault analysis.
Legal Principles
- Under Oregon’s comparative-fault statute, “fault” is broad enough to include both a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence and a defendant’s responsibility for placing a defective product into the market.
- In strict products liability, damages may be reduced when the plaintiff’s negligent conduct contributes to the injury, based on percentage comparison between the plaintiff’s fault and defendants’ fault related to the defect.
- Comparative-fault analysis focuses on degrees of departure from faultless conduct, permitting comparison across negligence and strict-liability theories for apportionment.
- When special verdict forms allocate fault, juror polling must be sufficient to confirm each juror’s assent to the specific answers; inadequate polling can require a new trial.
Conclusion
The court held that Oregon’s comparative-fault statute applies in strict products-liability actions and allows a plaintiff’s ordinary negligence to reduce recovery when compared against defendants’ fault in marketing a defective product, but it ordered a new trial because the jury was not properly polled on a critical special-verdict determination.