About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0331 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS DIVISION TWO. NEGLIGENCE CHAPTER 14. LIABILITY OF PERSONS SUPPLYING CHATTELS FOR THE USE OF OTHERS TOPIC 4. VENDORS OF CHATTELS MANUFACTURED BY THIRD PERSONS § 400. Vendor Selling as His Own Product Chattel Made by Another Wash.2018. Quot. in ftn. Wife of machinist who died of mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos products at work sued, among others, corporate parent of the manufacturer of the products, alleging that it was liable as an apparent manufacturer. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, and the court of appeals affirmed. This court adopted the apparent-manufacturer doctrine set forth in Restatement Second of Torts § 400 and reversed, holding that the objective-reliance test for apparent- manufacturer liability had to be judged from the viewpoint of an ordinary consumer or end user, rather than a sophisticated industrial user, and that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable consumer could conclude that defendant was an apparent manufacturer of the products. In making its decision, the court noted that the apparent-manufacturer doctrine first appeared in Restatement of Torts § 400. Rublee v. Carrier Corporation, 428 P.3d 1207, 1212. CHAPTER 16. THE CAUSAL RELATION NECESSARY TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TOPIC 1. CAUSAL RELATION NECESSARY TO THE EXISTENCE OF LIABILITY FOR ANOTHER'S HARM TITLE A. GENERAL PRINCIPLE § 433. Considerations Important in Determining Whether Negligent Conduct is a Substantial Factor in Producing Harm Or.2018. Cit. in case cit. in sup. Passenger brought a lawsuit against bar, alleging that defendant served his driver alcohol when she was visibly intoxicated, which led to her drunk driving and plaintiffs subsequent injury. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to provide evidence that he did not substantially contribute to the driver's intoxication. The court explained that the term substantially contribute as used in the relevant Oregon statute had the more specialized meaning as used elsewhere in tort law, such as in Restatement of Torts § 433, and meant that plaintiff s conduct was a significant and material factor in driver's intoxication. Mason v. BCK Corporation, 426 P.3d 206, 216. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most