Plаintiff appeals from a summary judgment for defendant. The trial court ruled that the product liability statute of ultimate repose, ORS 30.905(1), rathеr than ORS 12.115, applies to plaintiffs claim. We affirm.
On September 14, 1976, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the sale of a travel trailer. The contract included the sale and installation of an Eaz-Lift trailer hitch on plaintiffs truck, with which plaintiff intendеd to tow the trailer. The hitch was installed on September 29, 1976, and plaintiff picked up the truck the next day. According to the stipulated facts, the installation of the hitch consisted of the assembly, including welding, of component parts of the hitch assembly. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of defendant’s negligence in installing the hitch, a weld failed in December, 1984, and plaintiff lost control of his truck and trailer resulting in an accident with two other vehicles and damage to both the truck and the trailer. The parties stipulated that the weld that allegedly failed was made during defendant’s installation of the hitch.
The question is whether the alleged negligence describes a “product liability civil action,” as defined in ORS 30.900. Under ORS 30.905(1), such actions are barred, unless the injury complained of occurred within eight years of the date when the product was first purchased for use or consumption.
Baird v. Electro Mart,
“Product liability civil action” is defined in ORS 30.900:
“[A] civil action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a product for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of:
“(1) Any design, inspection, testing, manufacturing or other defect in a product[.]” (Emphasis supplied.)
Product liability “embraces
all
theories a plaintiff can adduce in an action based on a product defect,” including theoriеs of
*532
negligence.
Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co.,
Plaintiff first argues that he has alleged negligent installation of a nondefective product, not a product defect, that that negligenсe does not fall within the definition of ORS 30.900 and that, therefore, the ten-year limitation in ORS 12.115 applies. Defendant argues that plaintiff has аlleged that, during negligent assembly of component parts, defendant created a product defect under ORS 30.900, so that the eight-year limitation in ORS 30.905(1) applies.
Plaintiff relies on
Hoover v. Montgomery Ward,
“[I]t was not a dangerously defective tire which caused plaintiff’s injuries, but rather the installation of the wheel on the hub and axle of the auto. In such case it might be said that plaintiff’s auto became dangerously defective, but certainly not the tire.”270 Or at 502-03 .
Although thе possibility of imposing strict liability is not at issue in this case, that discussion of the definition of product defect is helpful. Plaintiffs complaint in this сase included these allegations:
“Defendant was negligent in the installation of the trailer hitch and receiver installed onto Plаintiff’s 1976 GMC pickup truck and 1976 Airstream Trailer in one or more of the following particulars:
“(1) in failing to weld the receiver end of the trailеr hitch system on all four sides of the box section to give the hitch system a proper and effective load bearing capability under the circumstances;
“(2) in installing the stiffiner [sic] GTS bar with insufficient length to properly or effectively assist in the load bearing function of the hitch system;
“(3) in welding the sleeve to tube areas of the hitch system with side welds of inadequate and insufficient strength *533 and size to properly or effectively assist in the load bearing function of the hitch system;
«* * * * *
“As a result of Defendant’s negligence, the trailer hitch and receiving mеmber installed on Plaintiffs pickup was of less strength and durability than reasonable so that plaintiff’s trailer hitch and receiving member beсame unwelded or bent * * * resulting in Plaintiff losing control [and causing the alleged damages].”
The complaint includes allegations that the seller was negligent in assembling the component parts: making inadequate welds between the receiver end and the box seсtion of the hitch system, installing a GTS stiffener bar that was too short and insufficient strength and size of the welds between the sleeve and tube areas of the hitch system. Those allegations, if proved, would show that assembly and installation of the trailer hitch created a defect in the hitch, resulting in a defective product being sold to plaintiff. 1 Those facts are different from those in Hoover, in which the plaintiff alleged no defect in the product itself, the tirе.
ORS 30.900 applies to an action brought against any seller for damages arising from a defect in a product. The complaint alleges a product liability civil action, and the eight-year limitation applies.
Plaintiff next argues that his claim is nevertheless not bаrred, because it is for negligence in “after-sale” service. In
Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Tech. Corp.,
Plaintiff argues that, because the sales contract was
*534
signed on September 14, but the work was not completed until September 29, the alleged negligence occurred after the sale. In
Erickson Air-Crane Co.,
the Supreme Court stated that ORS 30.905 applies to “acts or omissions taking place before or at the time that the defendant places a product in thе stream of commerce.”
Affirmed.
Notes
We do not distinguish defects created in thе assembly of the trailer hitch from those made in the installation. The Eaz-Lift “instructional guide,” included in the summary judgment record, required the installеr to customize each installation to the make and model of each car. The seller’s role in assembling the hitch is comparable to that of a manufacturer.