Purdy v. Deere & Co.
324 P.3d 455
Or.2014Background
- Isabelle Norton, a child, was severely injured when her father backed a Deere riding mower into her after overriding an automatic blade shutoff feature; plaintiff sued Deere and the seller Ramsey‑Waite for strict liability and negligence.
- Plaintiff alleged defects: an override mechanism for reverse blade shutoff, the override button’s dashboard placement (allowing mowing in reverse without looking), and absence of warnings about safe reverse operation.
- Defendants argued the mower was not defectively designed/marketed and blamed the father’s improper use and supervision; they also presented expert testimony that blade momentum would have caused injury even without the override.
- At trial, the jury answered “No” to three compound verdict questions (defect/causation and negligence/causation for each defendant); judgment entered for defendants.
- On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed only the assignment of error about the defense expert (causation) and declined to address nine other instructional/evidentiary errors because the compound verdict form made it impossible to tell whether the jury rejected culpability or causation (relying on Lyons).
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, overruling Lyons to the extent it required an appellant to show the jury actually made an adverse finding on the specific element; remanded for consideration of the remaining assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lyons requires an appellant to show the jury actually made an adverse finding on the element to which an instructional or evidentiary error is directed | Purdy: ORS 19.415(2) does not demand showing the jury expressly found against the appellant on that element; instructional/evidentiary errors can be reversible if they had a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict | Deere/Ramsey‑Waite: Lyons correctly applied Shoup and requires the appellant to show the jury made an adverse finding on the specific issue when the verdict is ambiguous | Court held Lyons was wrongly extended to bar review of instructional/evidentiary error; an appellant need not prove the jury actually made the adverse finding — the proper test asks whether the error substantially affected the party's rights under ORS 19.415(2) |
| Proper standard under ORS 19.415(2) for instructional error | Apply pre‑Lyons approach: consider instructions as a whole, trial evidence, and theories; reversal if error had some/significant likelihood of producing a legally erroneous result | Emphasized burden on appellant to make record of prejudicial error and that ambiguous verdicts can limit review | Court reaffirmed Shoup’s statutory interpretation: error must have more than a mere possibility of affecting outcome; reversal requires some/significant likelihood that error materially influenced the result |
| Relationship between special/specific verdict forms and harmless‑error analysis | Purdy: a special verdict is not required to show prejudice from instructional/evidentiary error | Defendants: where verdict form is compound (culpability + causation), Lyons/Whinston logic prevents meaningful appellate review absent more specific findings | Court: special verdicts can help make prejudice clear, but appellants are not obliged to have used them; the record‑based harmless‑error inquiry governs |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly declined to reach nine assignments of error because of the compound verdict form | Purdy: Court of Appeals erred in declining review; the nine errors related to culpability and should be evaluated under ORS 19.415(2) | Court of Appeals: following Lyons, could not tell if jury rested on causation, so other errors were necessarily harmless | Court reversed Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of the remaining assignments of error under the proper harmless‑error framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. Walsh & Sons Trucking Co., Ltd., 337 Or 319 (court of appeals must determine whether instructional error substantially affected rights; majority’s Lyons holding disavowed in part)
- Shoup v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 335 Or 164 (interpretation of ORS 19.415(2): reversal only for error substantially affecting rights; burden on appellant to show prejudice)
- Wallach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Or 314 (distinguishing Lyons; reaffirming traditional approach to instructional error — consider instructions as a whole and record)
- Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99 (instructional error reversible where it permitted legally erroneous result under the record)
- Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 309 Or 350 (the “we can’t tell” rule in the context of verdicts; discussed and limited by Shoup)