Hagler v. Coastal Farm Holdings, Inc., 309 P.3d 1073

Plaintiff injured when a post pounder fell in defendant’s hardware store; she did not see the fall or how it was shelved.
Photographs taken minutes after the accident show post pounders on three shelves at varying heights, with some protruding.
Defendant had general safety policies but no specific safety procedures for post pounder displays; no evidence of prior falls.
Plaintiff alleged negligent display in four ways: improper hiring/training, unsafe shelving, failure to warn, and placing a heavy item on a high shelf.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, requiring proof that defendant knew or should have known of dangerous shelving, which plaintiff could not show initially.
On appeal, court reviewed whether res ipsa loquitur could apply and whether Navin’s affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact about danger of display.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there evidence defendant knew or should have known of dangerous shelving?	Hagler argued display was inherently dangerous from Navin’s affidavit and photos.	Coastal Farm lacked evidence of knowledge or reasonable discovery of danger.	No genuine issue; no knowledge/should-have-known evidence.
Does res ipsa loquitur apply to this display case?	Res ipsa could apply to show danger from display absent proof of exact cause.	Res ipsa requires more than speculation and exclusive control is not required but causation must be shown.	Inapplicable; not proven that negligence more likely than not caused injury.
Did Navin's affidavit create a material dispute about the display’s danger?	Navin’s observations show a dangerous display.	Affidavit is speculative and contradicted by the photograph; not admissible causation.	No; Navin’s opinion does not establish a triable issue.

Diller v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 274 Or 735 (1976) (evidence of knowledge of hazardous condition required; prior notice matters)
Lee v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or 600 (1941) (dangerous display inquiry; no knowledge of falling pillow)
McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339 (1986) (res ipsa burden: injury more likely than not from defendant's negligence)
Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645 (1982) (limits on inference and probability in res ipsa analysis)
Pattle v. Wildish Construction Co., 270 Or 792 (1974) (no exclusive control required for res ipsa)
Mickel v. Haines Enterprises, Inc., 240 Or 369 (1965) (landowner duty to invitees; know or should have known dangers)