The case involved a 19-year-old plaintiff who suffered severe eye injury when a glass door light in a church door shattered upon impact from another person's hand. The plaintiff sued the manufacturers of the door light kit (Visador) and the glass (PPG) under theories of strict liability, warranty, and negligence. The court, applying Oregon's adoption of strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, determined that the glass was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it failed to perform as safely as expected by users, leading to liability for both defendants. The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in general damages for her injuries, pain, and permanent loss of vision in one eye.
The case involved a dispute between plaintiff Stanley and defendant Onetta Boat Works over a contract to construct a 57-foot steel fishing vessel, including claims for breach, extra charges, labor performed, a preferred ship mortgage, unsecured notes, and related insurance policies for hull damage and loss of profits. Onetta counterclaimed for foreclosure of the mortgage, payment on notes and extras, while third-party claims and cross-claims addressed insurance coverage and potential indemnity from Northwest Marine. The court found no novation of the contract, determined that Onetta failed to maintain precise records of extras due to treating the project on a cost-plus basis, allowed Onetta recovery on certain valid extras with interest, and permitted plaintiff's counterclaims for 550 hours of labor at $3 per hour totaling $1,650 plus attorney fees. It ruled that foreclosure would depend on whether Onetta's mortgage and extras exceeded plaintiff's awards, with provisions for insurance recovery and interest calculations from specified dates.
This case concerned competing claims to ownership and security interests in two sets of Euclid dump trucks (the 71’s and 65’s) among General Electric Credit Corp. (GECC), R.A. Heintz Construction Co., Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp., and a bankrupt equipment dealer (Fincham). Heintz purchased the 71’s from Fincham in good faith and traded in the 65’s as partial payment, after Ingersoll had obtained a pre-UCC chattel mortgage on the 71’s in Colorado and GECC later obtained a substituted interest in the 65’s. The court determined that Heintz qualified as a buyer in the ordinary course of business without actual knowledge of Ingersoll’s interest until after the transaction, that the UCC governed perfection and priority issues between the secured parties once effective in the relevant states, and that GECC’s interest in the 65’s was not cut off by Ingersoll’s prior claim; it also addressed the applicability of Colorado pre-Code law versus the UCC and the effect of filing requirements in Colorado and Oregon.
The case involved Osberg Construction Company, which submitted a bid and accompanying bond for a municipal dam construction contract with the City of The Dalles. After Osberg claimed errors in its bid calculations and attempted a late telegraphic modification or withdrawal, the City awarded the contract and forfeited the $24,998.75 bond when Osberg refused to execute it. Osberg sued to recover the bond, arguing mistake of fact under Oregon precedent. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the bid documents made the offer irrevocable and that no substantial mistake existed because the claimed omissions involved discretionary judgment rather than required items omitted from the plans. The court enforced the forfeiture provision as a valid contractual term absent fraud or other equitable grounds for relief.
This case involved damage claims by a motel owner and its construction contractor against a building trades union for picketing and handbilling that allegedly constituted an unlawful secondary boycott under the National Labor Relations Act. The court held the union liable under 29 U.S.C. § 187 for violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and awarded nominal damages of $100 to the contractor after finding insufficient proof of actual losses. The decision rested on the preclusive effect of a prior NLRB unfair-labor-practice finding that had been enforced by the Ninth Circuit, together with the court's independent factual determination that the union's conduct threatened neutral parties to force them to cease doing business with the non-union contractor. The court rejected certain damage claims as unsupported or attributable to other unions' earlier picketing.
In this case, a guest passenger injured in a car accident sued the other driver for negligence causing her injuries. The defendant raised a defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and her damages could have been reduced by wearing an available seat belt. The court granted the plaintiff's pretrial motion to strike this allegation. It reasoned that Oregon's seat belt law does not require use of the belts, applies only to certain new vehicles, and does not create negligence per se or common-law liability for non-use, consistent with precedents insulating guests from driver negligence and decisions from other states.