Hagler v. Coastal Farm Holdings, Inc.
260 P.3d 764
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Hagler injured at Coastal Farm hardware store when a post pounder fell while displayed on shelving in Oregon City.
- Display involved three shelf levels; post pounders weighed about 13 or 16.55 pounds and protruded from shelves.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent display, failure to warn, and unsafe high placement of the post pounders.
- Photograph shows three shelves with post pounders protruding a few inches; no one witnessed the fall.
- Before suit, Nivin affidavit described dangerous, crowded, stacking conditions; plaintiff admitted photo accurately depicted the display.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant after concluding plaintiff failed to show defendant caused the dangerous display or maintained it dangerously.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether display of post pounders created an unreasonable risk | Hagler argues display was inherently unsafe and dangerous | Coastal argues no reasonable inference of danger from display | No genuine issue; display not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to allow recovery | Res ipsa should apply to infer negligence and causation | Res ipsa not applicable; instrumentality not exclusively controlled by defendant | Res ipsa loquitur not applicable; insufficient to raise triable issue |
| Whether Hagler preserved res ipsa issue for appeal | Colloquy at summary judgment preserved res ipsa | Preservation not met | Res ipsa preservation adequate; doctrine analyzed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 600 (Oregon 1941) (pillow display not negligent absent notice or maintenance failures)
- Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or.App. 637 (Oregon 2004) (premises liability; no unreasonable danger shown without maintenance evidence)
- Rex v. Albertson's, Inc., 102 Or.App. 178 (Oregon 1990) (no liability for apparel packaging to prevent floor spillage; nonexclusive control of merchandize)
- Hammer v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 242 Or.App. 185 (Oregon 2011) (res ipsa generally not applicable when merchandise is ordinarily handled by customers)
- Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548 (Oregon 1984) (duty to maintain premises; unreasonable risk standard for invitees)
- Brant v. Tri-County Met., 230 Or.App. 97 (Oregon 2009) (deposition inconsistencies; summary judgment evidentiary sufficiency)