|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Linda Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.|
|Willamette University College of Law|
|Brandon B. Mayfield, on behalf of Linda Two Two and Patricia Fodge|
Thomas M. Christ, on behalf of Fujitec America, Inc.
|*WILL NOT BE WEBCAST|
Statement of Issues:
|Linda Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc. (S061536) (A145591) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 256 Or App 784, 305 P3d 132 (2013)).|
Plaintiffs Linda Two Two and Patricia Fodge have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Fujitec America, Inc., on plaintiffs' common-law negligence claim and their claims under Oregon's product liability statutes, ORS 30.900 to 30.920.
On review, the issues are:
(1) What information is required to be included in an attorney's affidavit or declaration under ORCP 47 E, regarding retention of a qualified expert, in order to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment in a case alleging negligence and products liability? Was the affidavit in this case adequate?
(2) Was the summary judgment record in this case sufficient for a jury to conclude that the type of injury that occurred was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence?
(3) Can a defendant who contracts to modernize an elevator be subject to strict product liability when it allegedly sold, installed, and tested component parts, manufactured by others, in an elevator system that failed and caused injury to persons who rode on the elevator?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: