Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation

Oregon Supreme Court

Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation

540 P.2d 998, 273 Or. 120, 1975 Ore. LEXIS 309

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 540 P.2d 998 (Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation, 540 P.2d 998, 273 Or. 120, 1975 Ore. LEXIS 309 (Or. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYSON, J.

Plaintiff brought this action on two counts, negligence and strict liability, to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a fall due to the collapse of long spanned truss joists used in the construction of a gymnasium at Lake Oswego High School No. 2.

Both counts of plaintiff’s complaint contain identical allegations that defendants “failed to provide adequate instructions for the safe erection of the *122 joists” and “failed to warn of the dangers inherent in erecting the joists.” Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff on the jury’s verdict and the defendants appeal.

The defendants assign as error the trial court’s denial of their respective motions for a directed verdict. The question before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury upon the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. The validity of the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motions depends upon whether there was any substantial evidence that defendants failed to provide adequate instructions for safe erection of the joists and failed to warn of the inherent dangers in erecting the joists and, if so, whether there was substantial evidence that such failure caused plaintiff’s injuries.

In considering this assignment of error, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to every reasonable inference that may be drawn from both plaintiff’s and defendants’ evidence. Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc., 265 Or 486, 490, 509 P2d 1199 (1973).

Defendant Trus Joist Corporation (Trus Joist) manufactured the truss joists and defendant Construction Components, Inc., (Components, Inc.) supplied and sold the joists to Juhr & Sons, Inc., the contractor and plaintiff’s employer. The truss joists manufactured and furnished by defendants were used in constructing the roof of both the main gymnasium and the auxiliary gymnasium. The construction of the auxiliary gymnasium had been completed and the plaintiff was injured during the erection of the roof of the main gymnasium. The main gymnasium required trusses approximately 104 feet in length and were spliced together in the center. The trusses for the *123 auxiliary gymnasium were 80 feet in length and were manufactured in one piece.

The trusses used in the construction of the main gymnasium and which are the subject of this action are of the “H Series” (heavy). They consist of two 2" x 6" upper chords and two 2" x 6" lower chords which are held together by tubular steel webs. Interspaced along the bottom, of the top chord and the top of the bottom chord are metal plates for the installation of a permanent bridging system ① which provides the lateral support for the trusses. The permanent bridging runs at right angles to the trusses. Although the trusses are weak and unstable in their natural state, they develop exceptional strength when they are. properly installed and placed in an upright position.

Both defendants supplied the contractor with printed instructions and illustrations for the installation of Series H trusses. Prior to erection of the joists, Components, Inc.’s representative visited the job site to discuss the correct procedure for the installation of the 104-foot trusses, and Components, Inc.’s assistant plant manager informed the contractor that “the joists were unstable ’til they were braced, and that he should install the bridging as he put the joists up.” The contractor did not advise the defendants of their “problem” as cautioned in the instructions. Their first notice was after the joists collapsed.

Following are selected reproduced portions of the instructions and warnings given by defendants to the contractor, plaintiff’s employee.

*124 uTY3gCSSFAOaYAjgXQBYZ5VYIhkpSVrPFQpgKlT2kFmB6KOS7nY8cHHxtO3x9QEwfFfl9zTNbjKKLIPxhaPrrBNiFmBZgFvMGutdAEtV3zMGVSF1qNY2qjCqI

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