Smith v. J. C. Penney Co. - 269 Or. 643, 525 P.2d 1299 (1974)

Rule:

The steps in reasoning by which any proposition is sought to be proved can almost always be stated separately in such a way as to reveal the process of moving from one inference to another in the course of proof. Where the inferences are strong enough, the court ordinarily does not express them in explaining how it reasoned to its conclusion. The admissibility of evidence should not rest upon a method of expressing the process of proof. 

Facts:

This is a products liability case. The plaintiff was badly burned when a gasoline fire broke out in a service station and ignited an allegedly highly inflammable "fake fur" coat worn by plaintiff. A gasoline line on an automotive vehicle was being blown out with the air pressure hose used to inflate tires. So much force was applied to the gasoline line that it blew a spray of gasoline out of the vehicle's opened tank and through an open door into the waiting room where there was a floor heater. Plaintiff was in the waiting room when the floor heater ignited the gasoline on the floor which in turn ignited her coat and she became a human torch.

The defendants McCabe and Slagh, dba The Central Enco Service Station, operated the service station. The defendant J.C. Penney Company sold the coat to plaintiff. The defendant Bunker-Ramo allegedly supplied the fabric used by Roseda in manufacturing the coat. The jury returned a verdict for $600,000 against the Enco Service Station and Bunker-Ramo, who appealed.

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to enable the jury to find that Bunker-Ramo supplied the fabric which went into this particular coat?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court rejected the manufacturer's argument that the inferences that it furnished the fabric in the coat were too speculative. Instead, it found that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the manufacturer supplied the fabric, as the jury could reason that the coat was made during the period that the manufacturer's fabric was used exclusively or, if after that time, that the notations on the cutting order and the tag from the coat proved that the manufacturer was the supplier. The court also rejected the service station's claim that the trial court erred in failing to give instructions it requested on causation, as the service station should have foreseen plaintiff would be injured by their conduct. Further, the service station's liability was not cut off, even though appellee was injured more severely than the service station could have reasonably foreseen.