Sandford v. Chevrolet Division of General Motors

642 P.2d 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · 1982

Facts

Plaintiff suffered severe burns when her pickup truck, equipped with a defective tire manufactured by Uniroyal and mounted by The Tire Factory, overturned and caught fire. Defendants alleged plaintiff's own negligence contributed to her injuries, and the jury found plaintiff 45% at fault, reducing her damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that ordinary contributory negligence does not reduce recovery in strict products liability under Oregon's proportionate fault statute, ORS 18.470.

Issue

The primary legal question is whether and how Oregon's proportionate fault statute (ORS 18.470) applies to reduce or bar recovery in a strict products liability action when a plaintiff's ordinary negligence contributes to their injuries. A secondary issue was the adequacy of the jury polling procedure.

Holding

The court held that an injured person's conduct, including ordinary negligence (but not mere failure to discover or guard against a defect), which was a cause of her injury and constitutes "fault," is to be considered in a products liability action to reduce or potentially bar recovery. However, the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's judgment was affirmed, remanding for a new trial, because the jury polling procedure was inadequate to ensure a valid verdict.

Rule

Under ORS 18.470, an injured claimant's "fault," including ordinary negligence (but excluding unobservant failure to discover or guard against a defect), that causes injury in a products liability case, can reduce or bar recovery if it was a cause-in-fact of the injury and not greater than the defendant's combined fault. The factfinder compares the degree of departure from faultless conduct (for plaintiff) and a defect-free product (for defendant) to determine percentages of fault.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-17. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.