Haile v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co.
698 F. App'x 874
9th Cir.2017Background
- Haile, a self-employed truck driver, delivered a sealed intermodal container to Hickory Springs Manufacturing in Portland, Oregon.
- While opening the container on Hickory’s premises, two 600-pound bales of scrap foam shifted and fell, causing the container door to strike and severely injure Haile.
- Haile sued Hickory for premises liability, alleging Hickory knew cargo sometimes shifted, rested against doors, and fell from containers on its property and thus had a duty to warn.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hickory; Haile appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit had to decide whether Oregon premises liability law imposes a duty on a land possessor for hazards created by cargo in a container brought onto the premises by an invitee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a land possessor owes premises-liability duties for hazards arising from cargo in a container brought onto the property by an invitee | Haile: Hickory knew cargo sometimes shifted and fell from containers on its premises and thus had a duty to warn | Hickory: The container and its cargo are not conditions of the property; no duty under premises liability law | Court: No; Haile’s injury resulted from cargo Haile brought onto the premises, not a condition of Hickory’s property, so premises liability claim fails |
| Whether Oregon would expand premises liability to cover foreseeable risks from invitee’s property | Haile: Oregon would recognize a duty to warn under these known, foreseeable risks | Hickory: Expanding premises liability would conflate it with general negligence and is unsupported by Oregon precedent | Court: Unlikely; expanding would erase the distinction between premises liability and negligence; Oregon would not extend liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Woolston v. Wells, 687 P.2d 144 (Or. 1984) (possession duty: make premises reasonably safe for invitees)
- Fazzolari By & Through Fazzolari v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 734 P.2d 1326 (Or. 1987) (general foreseeability defines negligence standard, not premises liability)
- Hagler v. Coastal Farm Holdings, Inc., 309 P.3d 1073 (Or. 2013) (en banc) (distinguishing premises liability from negligence)
- Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 347 P.3d 766 (Or. 2015) (reaffirming limits on premises liability expansion)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (relevant Ninth Circuit discussion on state-law expansion of premises liability)