Mccathern v. Toyota Motor Corporation

23 P.3d 320 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and her daughter, together with P's cousin, Sanders, and her daughter, were riding in Sanders's 1994 Toyota 4Runner. Sanders was driving, P was in the front passenger seat, and the children were in the back seat. Everyone was wearing a seatbelt. They were traveling at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour when an oncoming vehicle veered into Sanders's lane of travel. Sanders steered to the right onto the paved shoulder to avoid a collision, then steered to the left to stay on the highway. The 4Runner began to rock from side-to-side. She then steered to the right again to return to the southbound lane, at which point the 4Runner rolled over and landed upright on its four wheels. The front passenger seat collapsed and, as a result, P sustained serious and permanent injuries. The other passengers in the 4Runner sustained only cuts and bruises. P sued Ds alleging that the 1994 4Runner 'was dangerously defective and unreasonably dangerous in that the vehicle, as designed and sold, was unstable and prone to roll over.' P presented expert testimony that the accident was caused solely by the geometry of the 1994 4Runner, as opposed to any other tripping mechanism, such as braking, off-road travel, or a 'rim trip.' The expert stated that the 1994 4Runner was unreasonably dangerous because widening the vehicle by only eight inches would have increased its stability and decreased its propensity to roll over. D conceded that it was aware that the 1994 4Runner rolls over on flat, dry pavement due to tire friction forces alone. According to D, the 1994 4Runner's design was not defective because almost all sport utility vehicles (SUVs) will roll over under conditions similar to those present during P's accident. D conceded that widening the vehicle was feasible but that those changes were not practicable because they would have diminished the 4Runner's utility and inhibited its performance in an off-road environment. P also presented evidence that D had redesigned the 4Runner in 1996 by lowering its center of gravity and widening its track width. P presented evidence that D had promoted the 1994 4Runner as a safe and dependable vehicle for both highway and off-road purposes. P presented evidence that D had promoted the 1994 4Runner as a safe and dependable vehicle for both highway and off-road purposes. The motion was denied. P got the verdict and D filed a JNOV but it was ignored, and D appealed. The Court of Appeals after reviewing the history of 'the controlling standard of strict products liability under Oregon law: the 'consumer expectation' test,' held that a plaintiff in Oregon could establish defective design by proving ordinary consumer expectations under either a 'representational' theory, a 'consumer risk-utility' theory, or both. D appealed.