287 P.3d 1281
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Isabelle Norton, a two-year-old, was injured when a Deere riding mower backed into her; her conservator sued Deere and Ramsey-Waite.
- Trial evidence focused on design defects and warnings with the Reverse Implement Option (RIO) and a dashboard override button that could keep blades engaged while in reverse.
- Plaintiff alleged three defects: (i) blades could engage in reverse due to RIO, (ii) the override button location facilitated unsafe use, and (iii) inadequate safety instructions.
- Defendants argued the mower was not defective and that ordinary consumer danger was inherent; also argued injuries would have occurred even without RIO due to blade momentum.
- After a 13-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict; plaintiff appealed on evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.
- The trial court excluded other incidents and Deere toy-mower evidence, admitted Strieker as an expert, and issued jury instructions later challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of other incidents evidence | Plaintiff contends Deere had notice/continuing defect from prior incidents. | Defendants argue such evidence is improper and prejudicial. | Evidentiary rulings excluding other incidents were upheld; harmless as causation contested. |
| Admission of Deere toy-mower marketing evidence | Toy mowers create consumer expectations that protect children; evidence admissible. | Toy-mower evidence is irrelevant to the dispute over the Deere mower. | Court rejected inclusion; evidence excluded as improper. |
| qualification and admissibility of Strieker as accident reconstruction expert | Strieker lacks accident reconstruction expertise and should be excluded. | Strieker has Deere-design experience; qualified to testify about mower function and reconstruction. | Strieker qualified to provide accident reconstruction testimony; admission proper. |
| Impact of the verdict form on prejudice from evidentiary errors | Compound verdict prevents knowing which theory the jury relied on, making errors prejudicial. | Lyons controls; causation theory could justify defense verdict independent of culpability. | Lyons controls; any error harmless so long as the verdict could be supported on causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 335 Or 164 (2003) (set forth the 'we can’t tell' rule for reversible error when verdict could be based on multiple grounds)
- Lyons v. Walsh & Sons Trucking Co., Ltd., 337 Or 319 (2004) (compound verdicts; burden on appellant to show prejudice from error)
- Wallach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Or 314 (2008) (distinguishes Lyons from certain instructional-error contexts; reaffirms Lyons in similar compound-ground scenarios)
- Myers v. Cessna Aircraft, 275 Or 501 (1976) (discussed expert qualification standards prior to formalization under Rogers)
- State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282 (2000) (establishes legal-error standard for expert qualification under OEC 702)