Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a public corporation against the dismissal of its product liability claims, rooted in the purchase of defective polybutylene pipes in 1972, which allegedly caused economic and property damages. The central legal issue concerns whether the statute of ultimate repose under ORS 30.905 applies to the City of Medford's claims. Medford argues for exemption based on a common-law principle and statutory protection under ORS 12.250, which exempts state and public entities from general statutes of limitations unless explicitly included. The appellate court agreed with Medford, reversing the trial court's dismissal of the negligence claim, asserting that ORS 30.905 does not apply to sovereign entities. However, the court upheld the dismissal of the strict liability claim, determining that the defects did not pose an unreasonable danger to personal safety or property, referencing precedent set in Russell v. Ford Motor Company. Consequently, the court concluded that the City of Medford's actions fell within the statutory protection, allowing the negligence claim to proceed, while the strict liability claim was dismissed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Negligence and Product Defect Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's dismissal of the negligence claim was reversed because the statute of repose under ORS 30.905 does not apply to the City of Medford's claims.
Reasoning: The trial court's ruling contradicting this was erroneous.
Statute of Limitations for Government Entitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the statute of limitations under ORS 30.905 does not apply to public corporations like the City of Medford due to the common-law principle and statutory exemption provided by ORS 12.250.
Reasoning: Consequently, since ORS 30.905 does not explicitly include sovereign entities, its limitations do not apply to the City of Medford regarding negligence or strict liability claims.
Strict Liability under ORS 30.920subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court upheld the dismissal of the strict liability claim, finding that the alleged defect in the polybutylene pipe did not pose an unreasonable danger to personal safety, as required by the statute.
Reasoning: The trial court ruled that the injuries claimed do not extend to the concept of 'dangerous' injuries that would support a strict liability claim, referencing Russell v. Ford Motor Company.