481 P.3d 939
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff (Apple Store employee) walked into a wall-mounted data cabinet in a backroom hallway and struck her head after the cabinet had been moved to head height.
- Defendants (Verizon entities) originally installed the cabinet about 1–2 feet above the floor (knee/shin height), contrary to a work order specifying 9 feet.
- A third party (Hoffman Construction) later relocated the cabinet to about 5–6 feet above the floor without defendants’ knowledge.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence, alleging defendants installed/maintained the cabinet in a walk path, near a corner, without safeguards or adequate warning.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning head injury was not a foreseeable result of defendants’ initial knee-height installation.
- Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding foreseeability and causation were triable issues and the harm should be characterized as a person colliding with the cabinet (not narrowly as a head injury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual causation — was defendants’ initial installation a cause of plaintiff’s injury? | Defendants’ negligent installation was a but-for cause; if not negligently installed, cabinet would not have been moved and injury would not have occurred. | The subsequent reinstallation by Hoffman was the direct cause; defendants’ initial placement was not a substantial factor. | Reversed — a reasonable juror could find defendants’ initial installation was a factual/substantial factor; not so insignificant as to absolve liability. |
| Foreseeability — was the type of harm (head injury) foreseeable from the initial installation? | Foreseeability need only cover bodily collision generally; plaintiff need not show foreseeability of injury to a particular body part. | Foreseeability requires particularity (e.g., that someone would hit their head); initial knee-height placement did not make head injury foreseeable. | Reversed — court erred by construing harm too narrowly; proper characterization is risk of collision in walkway, a jury question. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on foreseeability | Foreseeability is fact-specific and ordinarily for the jury; summary judgment inappropriate. | If harm is unforeseeable as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. | Reversed — foreseeability is ordinarily a jury question except in extreme cases; this is not such a case. |
| Scope of defendant’s duty after third-party relocation | Defendant’s duty includes avoiding creating a hazard in a walkway; later relocation does not necessarily cut off liability. | Subsequent, independent reinstallation created new risks for which defendants should not be liable. | Reversed/remanded — duty/liability limits are governed by foreseeability; triable issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lasley v. Combined Transp., Inc., 351 Or 1 (2011) (distinguishes factual causation from foreseeability and frames substantial-factor test)
- Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1 (1987) (foreseeability as the central limit on negligence liability)
- Stewart v. Jefferson Plywood Co., 255 Or 603 (1970) (advocates describing foreseeable harm at an appropriate, case-specific level of generality)
- Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196 (2015) (court may define type of harm by the factual setting; too-general risk descriptions may fail)
- Piazza v. Kellim, 360 Or 58 (2016) (foreseeability is a blended factual and normative inquiry ordinarily for the jury)
- Sandford v. Chevrolet Div. of Gen. Motors, 292 Or 590 (1982) (quotation on substantial-factor factual causation)