Strict Liability vs. Negligence Under the Oregon Product Liability Act

We rely on consumer products every single day, from the vehicles we drive to the appliances in our kitchens and the medications we take. When these products fail and cause catastrophic injuries, holding the massive manufacturing companies accountable can feel like an impossible task. In Oregon, consumers are protected by a very powerful set of statutes known as the Oregon Product Liability Act (OPLA). This law provides a clear framework for how injured victims can demand financial compensation.

Understanding exactly what you must prove in court is essential to establishing a valid claim. The OPLA allows you to sue under two primary legal theories: traditional negligence and strict liability. Because corporations will deploy teams of defense lawyers to shift the blame onto you, you should connect with an aggressive product liability attorney through our US Attorney Directory to build an ironclad case on your behalf.

The Oregon Product Liability Act (OPLA) Overview

In Oregon, all claims for personal injury, death, or property damage arising out of a product defect are governed by the OPLA, found under Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.900. This statute encompasses any action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or lessor of a product.

Proving Traditional Negligence

Before modern consumer protection laws, injured victims had to sue under traditional negligence. To win a negligence claim, you must prove that the manufacturer owed you a duty of care, they breached that duty by being careless during the design or manufacturing process, and that carelessness directly caused your injury. Proving what happened behind the closed doors of a factory overseas is incredibly difficult. For this reason, negligence is rarely the primary legal theory used today, though it is often still included in the lawsuit as an alternative claim.

Proving Strict Liability Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.920

To protect consumers, Oregon adopted the standard of strict liability under Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.920. Under strict liability, the manufacturer's carefulness is irrelevant. You do not have to prove that the factory was negligent or made a mistake. You only have to prove the following elements:

• The defendant sold the product in the course of their business.
• The product reached the consumer without substantial change in its condition.
• The product was in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous' to the user.
• The defect directly caused the plaintiff's injuries.

By removing the need to prove corporate carelessness, strict liability makes it significantly easier for injured Oregonians to recover damages.

The Three Main Types of Defects in Oregon

To prove a product was 'unreasonably dangerous' under strict liability, your attorney will classify the failure into one of three specific defect categories.

Manufacturing Defects (The Factory Messed Up)

A manufacturing defect occurs when a flaw happens during the assembly process. The product's blueprint was perfectly safe, but the specific unit you purchased was built incorrectly. For example, if a bicycle manufacturer forgets to install a critical bolt on the brakes of one specific bike, and you crash because of it, that is a manufacturing defect. The rest of the bikes on the market are safe, but yours was uniquely dangerous due to a factory error.

Design Defects (The Blueprint is Dangerous)

A design defect occurs when the product was built exactly as intended, but the original design itself is inherently unsafe for its foreseeable use. In design defect cases, Oregon uses the 'Consumer Expectations Test.' As established in the landmark case McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp., 332 Or. 59 (OR Supreme Court 2001), a product is defectively designed if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. If an SUV has a high center of gravity that causes it to roll over during standard highway lane changes, the entire product line has a design defect.

Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn / Inadequate Instructions)

Even if a product is manufactured correctly and designed as safely as possible, it can still be considered unreasonably dangerous if it lacks proper warning labels or clear instructions. This is known as a marketing defect. For instance, if a commercial drain cleaner contains chemicals that will cause severe chemical burns upon contact with skin, but the bottle does not carry a prominent warning label advising users to wear heavy-duty gloves, the manufacturer may be held strictly liable for any resulting burns.

Filing Your Defective Product Lawsuit

If you have been injured, your attorney will draft a lawsuit detailing the exact type of defect under the OPLA. You will generally file a formal product liability complaint drafted under the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure in your local county court, such as the Deschutes County Circuit Court, Bend or the Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon City. The case will require extensive expert testimony from engineers and safety analysts to prove the existence of the defect to the jury.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)