Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren Werke

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren Werke

734 P.2d 387, 84 Or. App. 483

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 25, 1987

DocketA8207-04151; CA A36181

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 734 P.2d 387 (Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren Werke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, 734 P.2d 387, 84 Or. App. 483 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

*485 WARREN, J.

In this products liability crashworthiness action against an automobile manufacturer and its distributors, defendants appeal the striking of an affirmative defense that plaintiff contributed to his injuries because he failed to use the seat belts provided in the allegedly defective automobile.

The basic facts are not disputed. Plaintiff was driving his car at night when it went out of control and crashed through a fence. He was thrown from the car and trapped by a part of the fence. During the accident, some gasoline sloshed out of the car’s filler pipe and ignited, causing a small but intense fire in the area where plaintiff lay trapped. He received burns from the fire as well as a scratch on the cornea of one eye and a small laceration on his head.

In their answer, defendants alleged that plaintiff was at fault and negligent in failing to use his seat belt. At trial it was established that the fire which caused most of plaintiffs injuries did not spread to the inside of the vehicle. We will assume for the sake of argument that plaintiff would have , suffered few, if any, injuries had he been held in the vehicle by his seat belt. Defendants’ only assignment of error relates to the trial court’s striking of the seat belt comparative fault allegation.

In Madaris v. State of Oregon Highway Div., 80 Or App 662, 668, 723 P2d 1054 (1986), we held that, “in the absence of some showing that the failure to use a seat belt contributed, in some way, to the cause of the accident,” the failure may not be considered in determining the comparative fault of plaintiffs bringing negligence claims for injuries received in automobile accidents. Comparative fault is a defense in strict products liability actions. See Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors, 292 Or 590, 642 P2d 624 (1982). Defendants argue that plaintiffs failure to use his seat belt did contribute to the cause of the accident. We do not agree. Here, the “accident”, which in a crashworthiness case is not the crash itself but the failure of the vehicle to withstand the crash, was the escape of gasoline, which then caught fire. Plaintiffs failure to buckle up did not cause the fire. Thus, if this were a negligence action, the seat belt defense would not be available. We see no reason why failure to use a seat belt *486 should be considered as comparative fault in a products liability action when it is not available in a negligence action. Accordingly, the holding of Madaris controls, and the trial court did not err in striking the seat belt defense.

Although defendants might have been able to raise the seat belt issue on another theory, evidence of plaintiffs failure to use his seat belt was not offered for any purpose other than to show comparative fault, and the trial court was never given an opportunity to rule on any other theory. Accordingly, there was no error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*485 WARREN, J.

In this products liability crashworthiness action against an automobile manufacturer and its distributors, defendants appeal the striking of an affirmative defense that plaintiff contributed to his injuries because he failed to use the seat belts provided in the allegedly defective automobile.

The basic facts are not disputed. Plaintiff was driving his car at night when it went out of control and crashed through a fence. He was thrown from the car and trapped by a part of the fence. During the accident, some gasoline sloshed out of the car’s filler pipe and ignited, causing a small but intense fire in the area where plaintiff lay trapped. He received burns from the fire as well as a scratch on the cornea of one eye and a small laceration on his head.

In their answer, defendants alleged that plaintiff was at fault and negligent in failing to use his seat belt. At trial it was established that the fire which caused most of plaintiffs injuries did not spread to the inside of the vehicle. We will assume for the sake of argument that plaintiff would have , suffered few, if any, injuries had he been held in the vehicle by his seat belt. Defendants’ only assignment of error relates to the trial court’s striking of the seat belt comparative fault allegation.

In Madaris v. State of Oregon Highway Div., 80 Or App 662, 668, 723 P2d 1054 (1986), we held that, “in the absence of some showing that the failure to use a seat belt contributed, in some way, to the cause of the accident,” the failure may not be considered in determining the comparative fault of plaintiffs bringing negligence claims for injuries received in automobile accidents. Comparative fault is a defense in strict products liability actions. See Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors, 292 Or 590, 642 P2d 624 (1982). Defendants argue that plaintiffs failure to use his seat belt did contribute to the cause of the accident. We do not agree. Here, the “accident”, which in a crashworthiness case is not the crash itself but the failure of the vehicle to withstand the crash, was the escape of gasoline, which then caught fire. Plaintiffs failure to buckle up did not cause the fire. Thus, if this were a negligence action, the seat belt defense would not be available. We see no reason why failure to use a seat belt *486 should be considered as comparative fault in a products liability action when it is not available in a negligence action. Accordingly, the holding of Madaris controls, and the trial court did not err in striking the seat belt defense.

Although defendants might have been able to raise the seat belt issue on another theory, evidence of plaintiffs failure to use his seat belt was not offered for any purpose other than to show comparative fault, and the trial court was never given an opportunity to rule on any other theory. Accordingly, there was no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 P.2d 387, 84 Or. App. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahl-v-bayerische-motoren-werke-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack