Lead Opinion
This is аn action against the manufacturer and retailer of chicken feed for damages because the feed was defective. The complaint seeks recovery on a theory of strict liability.
The court, on motion by defendant Western Farmers Association, the manufacturer, struck the allegations of loss of profits. Plaintiffs refused to plead further and the court entered an order dismissing the case as to that defendant.
It is contended by defendant, however, that regardless of whether recovery under Section 402A should be extended to economic loss, including loss of profits, there can be no recovery under Section 402A because, by its terms, that rule is limited to products which are not only “in a defective condition,” but are also “unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or. to his property.” Defendant contends that plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege an “unreasonably dangerous” defect.
Because of the importance of this question and
In their supplemental brief plaintiffs state the recognized rule that when a question whether a complaint states a cause of action is raised for the first time on appeal, the complaint will be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs point out that the complaint, after alleging that the chicken feed was fed to the laying hens, goes on to allege:
“That the said feed so purchased was defective and such defect in the feed was such that when the feed was fed to- the plaintiffs’ chickens, the chickens were affected adversely and damaged thereby.”
Plaintiffs contend that:
“The obvious inference from these allegations is that the feed wаs defective and in damaging the chicks to which it was fed it obviously was not fulfilling the reasonable expectations of the plaintiffs, because chicken feed is not expected to damage one’s chickens so that their eggs taste bad and they quit laying eggs, as is also alleged in paragraph V.”
Plaintiffs then quote from our decision in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.,
“What this seems to be saying is that if a product does not meet the reasonable expectations of an ordinary consumer it is defective and in a condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.”
Similarly, plaintiffs construe Comment ¿under Section 402A as follows:
“What this is obviously saying is that if a product has a defect and because thereof it is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ordinary*474 consumer, the product is by definition unreasonably dangerous.”④
Based upon this reasoning, plaintiffs conclude as follows:
“We submit tbat under tbe Restatement and tbe Heaton case law this complaint has alleged facts, i.e. a defect and a condition not reasonably contemplated by tbe ultimate consumer which in effect says the product was unreasonably dangerous. That certainly is to be inferred from the language of the complaint. In construing it for the first time on appeal the plaintiffs should have the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts alleged.”
Defendant responds to these contentions as follows:
“A material and necessary element of strict liability under Section 402A of the Restatement of*475 Torts 2d is that the property be ‘unreasonably dangerous’ to its user or consumer or to the user or consumer’s property. Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 402A. HEATON v. FORD MOTOR CO.,248 Or 467 , 470-471,435 P 2d 806 (1967).
ÍÍ* * #
“The defect in the feed is not specified. If the defect was, for example, ground glass, the court could state without any question that the feed itself because of the defect was unreasonably dangerous to the chickens. On the other hand, if the defect was too much of an ingredient, the feed itself might not be unreasonably dangerous, except in the manner in which it was fed or eaten by the chickens.
“Therefore, from the plaintiff’s complaint it is not clear whether or not the plaintiff is claiming that the defective chicken feed was ‘unreasonably dangerous’ or merely that the feed was defective. Both elements are required.”
In considering these opposing contentions we recognize that some authorities go even further than plaintiffs and take the position that recovery on a theory of strict liability by a consumer or user оf defective goods is not dependent upon proof that such goods are “unreasonably dangerous.”
In the first of these cases, Wights v. Staff Jennings,
On the same date, in Price v. Gatlin,
“* * * [T]he social and economic reasons which courts elsewhere have given for extending enterprise liability to the victims of physical injury are not equally persuasive in a case of a disappointed buyer of personal property. See Seely v. White Motor Company, 45 Cal Rptr 17,403 P2d 145 (1965).”
Two years later, in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., supra, a personal injury case, we stated (at 470-71) that:
“* * * In the case at bar, we now adopt Section 402A and hold that if the product is in fact unreasonably dangerous the manufacturer is liable for the harms caused by such a defect. It is nоt necessary to prove that the product is ‘ultrahazardous,’ nor that it was placed on the market ‘neg*477 ligently.’ It is necessary, however, to prove that it is dangerously defective. •
“An article is dangerously defective when it is in a condition treasonably dangerous to the user. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. Unreasonably, in this context, means dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary purchaser. * * *” (Emphasis added)
Since our decision in Heaton we have consistently held that our adoption of Section 402A as the basis for an action in strict liability in tort includes its requirement that the defect be “unreаsonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property.” See Anderson v. Klix Chemical,
After reviewing our previous decisions in cases involving actions in strict liability by the purchasers of defective goods, as well as other cases and authorities on this subject,
The complaint in this case does not, in our judgment, allege facts from which it appears, either directly or by inference, that the chicken feed involved in this case was “unreasonably dangerous,” rather than merely “defective” in some manner that would not make'it “unreasonably dangerous.”
Neither do we agree with the contention of the dissenting opinion by O’Connell, C. J., that “the only question is whether the damage caused by the feed was that which would be contemplated by the ordinary purchaser.” This, according to the dissent, would include any damage that would decrease the value of plaintiffs’ property.
Under that rationale, a dog food which caused a champiоn show dog to lose the gloss of its coat, thus decreasing its value as a show dog, would be “unreasonably dangerous” despite the fact that the health of the dog was in no way impaired. Or inferior baking powder may cause an entire batch of bread in a commercial bakery to not “rise” in the normal manner, thus impairing the saleability of the bread, although not affecting its qualities of nourishment.
The only two decisions by this court in which Section 402A has been applied to property damage have been cases in which the defective product also posed aü unreasonable danger to human life and safety. See Brownell v. White Motor Corp.,
As previously pointed out, we held in Price v. Gatlin, supra, that the reasons for extending enterprise liability to the victims of physical injury are not equally persuasive in a case of a disappointed buyer of personal property.
As also stated by Holman, J., concurring, in Price v. Gatlin, supra (at 319):
“* * * In establishing liability in personal injury cases courts have been motivated to overlook any necessity for privity because the hazard to life and health is usually a personal disaster of major proportions to the individual both physically and financially and something of minor importance to the manufacturer or wholesaler against which they can protect themselves by a distribution of risk through the price of the article sold. There has not been the same social necessity to motivate the recovery for strictly economic losses' where the dam*480 aged person’s health, and therefore his basic earning capacity, has remained unimpaired. To enforce strict liability for personal injuries because of such necessity and then to allow recovery for purely economic losses because they arise from the same defect is to apply the doctrine of strict- liability when the original motivating factor therefor is not present. * * *”
See also State ex rel Western Seed v. Campbell, supra.
We need not decide in this case whether our adoption of.the rule of strict liability, as stated in Section 402A, for application in cases involving damage to property from defective products should be limited to cases in which the defective product is unreasonably dangerous to persons, as well as to property, as was true in Brownell v. White Motor Corp., supra, and Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co., supra. We do not reach or decide that question in this case, notwithstanding the interpretation of our opinion by the dissent to the contrary.
We believe, however, that the term “unreasonably dangerous,” as used in Section 402A as the basis for the imposition of strict liability, without proof of negligence, was not intеnded to be so “watered down” as to extend to any defect which in any way-may decrease the value of property, as suggested by the dissent and as plaintiffs must contend in order to recover in this case.
For these reasons we hold that the trial court did not err in striking the allegations of the complaint alleging loss of profits or in dismissing the complaint upon plaintiffs’ refusal to plead further. It follows that we need not decide in this case whether, in-an ac
Both the specially concurring opinion and the dissenting' opinion by O’Connell, C. J., propose the adoption of a rule to the effect that the remedy for breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code shоuld be the sole remedy in this case, to the exclusion of any remedy under Section 402A.
For all of these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Notes
The complaint also includes a count on a theory of negligence, which is not involved on this appeal. The complaint does not, however, seek recovery on a theory of implied-warranty of fitness or merchantability.
Plaintiffs took a voluntary nonsuit as to the defendant Wilbur King, the retailer.
Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.,
Restatement of Torts 2d § 402A (1965), provides as follows:
“(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
“(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
“(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
“(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
“(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
“(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
Comment i, Restatement of Torts 2d § 402A (1966), reads as follows:
“i. Unreasonably dangerous. The rule stated in this Section applies only where the defective condition of the product ' makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. Many products cannot possibly be made entirely safe for all consumption, and any food or drug necessarily involves some risk of harm, if only from over-consumption. Ordinary sugar is a deadly poison to diabetics, and castor oil found use under Mussolini as an instrument of torture. That is not what is meant by ‘unreasonably dangerous’ in this Section. The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Good whiskey is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it will make some people drunk, and is espeсially dangerous to alcoholics; but bad whiskey, containing a dangerous amount of fusel oil, is unreasonably dangerous. Good tobacco is not unreasonably dangerous merely because the effects of smoking may be harmful; but tobacco containing something like marijuana may be unreasonably dangerous. Good butter is not unreasonably dangerous merely because, if such be the case, it deposits cholesterol in the arteries and leads to heart attacks; but bad butter, contaminated with poisonous fish oil, is unreasonably dangerous.”
Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal 3d 121, 104 Cal Rptr 433,
See cases and authorities cited in State ex rel Western Seed v. Campbell,
Cf. Texsun Feed Yards, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Company, 447 F2d 660 (5th Cir 1971).
It should be noted that the claim in this case is not limited to “purely economic; loss of profits” as stated in the specially concurring opinion, but also includes a claim for the, value of the eggs and chickens allegedly damaged by the defective feed. -
Concurrence Opinion
specially concurring.
Confusión was created in this field of law because commercial contract concepts covering ■ claims of economic loss were shaрed to impose liability for
In the present case the plaintiff is now attempting to reverse the field and use the new tоrt of strict liability to impose liability with facts which have been governed by commercial contract principles. For example, see Kassab v. Central Soya, 432 Pa 217,
I categorize this as a case that should be governed solely by the UCC because of two characteristics: (1) the loss claimed is purely economic, loss of profits; and (2) the loss was not an “accidental” one such as the loss in Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc., 262 Or 293,
The UCC requirement of notice of breach of warranty, OES 72.6070, or the possibility of the seller putting in a disclaimer, ORS 72.3160, are not unfair or foreign under these circumstances.
In my opinion there is a need for certainty in this field that outweighs my inability to state more
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The majority holds that the complaint does not allege facts from which it could be found that the defective chicken feed was “unreasonably dangerous” within the meaning of Section 402A of the [Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).
The complaint alleged that the defect in the feed “was such that when the feed was fed to the plaintiffs’ chickens, the chickens were affected adversely and damaged thereby.” As we noted in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.,
Since damage to property falls within the ambit of § 402A, the only question is whether the damage caused by the feed was that which would be contemplated by the ordinary purchaser. I should think that if the feed had killed the chickens, the damage would
The majority opinion reads plaintiffs’ brief as arguing that a product is unreasonably dangerous under § 402A in every ease where the product does not meet the reasonable expectations of an ordinary consumer. I do not so interpret plaintiffs’ argument. Plaintiffs argue only that if a defective product causes damage there is a right to recover, but only if the article is found to be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it.
The majority opinion would permit recovery for property damage under § 402A only if the product were found to be unreasonably dangerous to human life. This seems to be the import of the court’s statement that “[t]he only two decisions by this court in which Section 402A has been applied to property damage have been cases in which the defective product also posed an unreasonable danger to human life and safety.” It is not illogical to argue that recovery under § 402A should be limited to damage for personal injuries,
The trial court struck the allegations of loss of profit, apparently upon the basis of our holding in Price v. Gatlin,
I have previously expressed the opinion thаt this type of ease should not be dealt with under § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts since it is controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (ORS 72.7140 — 72.7150). See Markle v. Mulholland’s, Inc.,
See concurring opinion by Holman, J. in Price v. Gatlin,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I agree with that part of the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice which holds that the feed was unreasonably dangerous to plaintiffs' property (chickens) as contemplated by Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and I would therefore hold that the complaint states a cause of action under that section. Unreasonably dangerous is merely the opposite of reasonably safe.
The results in Price v. Gatlin and State ex rel Western Seed v. Campbell,
Where there is damage to person or property and the law of damages would normally allow loss of anticipated business profits resulting therefrom, recovery for such loss should follow.