Wyland v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. et al
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER: WWG and Imperials' Motion to Dismiss Marathon's counterclaim 55 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Oral argument is also denied as unnecessary. The parties shall contact Paul Bruch, Courtroom Deputy for the Honorable Thomas Coffin, United States Magistrate Judge, at 541-431-4111 to schedule a judicial settlement conference. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 6/11/2015 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)
IN THE' UNITED STATES DISTRICT' COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. 3:13-cv-00863-AA
OPINION AND ORDER
BLAKE WYLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.; IMPERIAL
SUPPLIES, LLC; and DAYTONA
ABRASIVES, INC.; and MARATHON
SALES, INC. ,
Defendants.
W.W. GRAINGER, INC., and
IMPERIAL SUPPLIES, LLC;
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
MARATHON SALES,
INC.
Third-Party Defendant.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff
Blake
Wyland
filed
an
amended
complaint
and
alleged strict liability and negligence claims against Marathon
Sales,
Inc.
(Marathon).
counterclaim
of
In
common
response,
law
plaintiffs
W.W.
subsidiary,
Imperial Supplies,
then
sought
Grainger,
dismissal
indemnity
Inc.
of
Marathon· then
LLC
against
and
(WWG)
asserted
a
third-party
its
wholly-owned
(Imperial) . WWG and Imperial
Marathon's
counterclaim,
which
the
Court denied. WWG and Imperial now move for summary judgment on
grounds that Marathon's claim is precluded by the Oregon Supreme
Court's
opinion
Or.
39 346 P.3d 468,
25,
in Eclectic
Investment,
476
(2015).
LLC v.
Patterson,
357
The motion is granted in
part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Marathon
is
distributing,
and other
business
abrasives.
and
in
the
selling
business
of
abrasives,
including
fleet maintenance products.
of
importing,
Imperial
packaging,
and/or
arrangement with Marathon,
cut-off wheels
WWG
importing,
Imperial
cut-off
is
distributing,
entered
packaging,
into
also
and
a
wheels
in the
selling
business
pursuant to which Imperial purchased
from Marathon.
Marathon,
in turn,
purchased the
cut-off wheels from a manufacturer in China and repackaged them
before selling the wheels to customers such as Imperial.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
On April 26,
YRC Worldwide,
off
wheel
grinder
apart.
face
2011,
Inc.,
purchased
on,
the
Shards
plaintiff was using a
from
Imperial.
cut-off wheel
of
shield,
while performing work as a mechanic for
the
began to
cut-off
hitting
When
wheel
plaintiff
in
grinder with a
plaintiff
cut-
turned
the
spin rapidly· and broke
penetrated
the
right
his
eye
protective
and
causing
severe injuries.
On April 17,
County
Circuit
liability
Abrasives,
and
2013,
plaintiff filed a complaint in Multnomah
Court,
alleging
negligence
Inc.
Imperial
claims
against
and
for
strict
Imperial,
WWG
removed
WWG,
the
products
and
Daytona
to
federal
case
court.
On
August
7 ,.
2013,
Imperial
and
WWG
filed
common law indemnity claim against Marathon;
counterclaims
subsequently
sought
to
against
settled
amend
his
Imperial
his
or
claims
complaint
WWG
at
against
to
assert
a
third-party
Marathon filed no
that
time.
Imperial
strict
and
Plaintiff
WWG
and
liability
and
negligence claims against Marathon.
This Court allowed the amendment over Marathon's objections.
In
his
amended
complaint,
plaintiff
alleges
that
negligent and should be held strictly liable for
because
Marathon
selling them,
did
not
inspect
the
cut-off
Marathon
his
wheels
was
injuries,
prior
to
knew or should have known the cut-off wheels were
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
defective,
and failed to warn customers of the potential risks.
Marathon denies plaintiff's allegations and asserts a common law
indemnity claim against WWG and Imperial.
To date,
Imperial and
WWG have not sought to dismiss their third-party claim against
Marathon.
On November 13,
Marathon's
that
( 1)
merits;
2014,
WWG and Imperial
cross-claim for
common-law indemnity on the grounds
it was procedurally improper and
the
motion
was
sought to dismiss
denied.
They
( 2)
now
it failed on the
move
for
summary
judgment on Marathon's cross-claim based on the Oregon Supreme
Court's recent decision in Eclectic.
DISCUSSION
WWG
recent
and
Imperial
argue
interpretation
necessarily
and
of
that
the
Oregon's
completely
Oregon
Supreme
comparative
precludes
Marathon's
fault
Court's
scheme
counter-claim
for common-law indemnity as a matter of law. It does not.
Twenty
state's
years
ago,
comparative
the
Oregon
negligence
legislature
scheme
changed
eliminating
several liability. See Lasley v. Combined Transp.,
joint
Inc.,
the
and·
351 Or.
1, 19, 261 P.3d 1215, 1226 (2011) (citing Or. Laws 1995, ch. 696,
§§ 1-5 (Spec. Sess.)).
Instead, underOr. Rev.
tort feasor
is
responsible only for
determined
in
the
action
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
brought
Stat. §31.610, "a
its percentage of fault
by
the
plaintiff."
Id.
as
The
Oregon Supreme Court in Lasley held that the current statutory
scheme limits a defendant from "bring[ing] a contribution action
·to seek a different determination of its percentage of fault."
Lasley, 351 Or. at 21. Rather, contribution is available only to
a defendant who, after fault-apportionment,
has "paid more" than
its "proportional share of the common liability." Id. at 19. The
court
asserted that
a
defendant may,
instead,
ensure
truly liable party is accounted for by "fil [ing]
that
any
a third-party
complaint." Id. at 22 (citations omitted).
The Court's recent holding in Eclectic similarly addressed
how
common-law
scheme.
357
indemnity
Or.
at
fits
36-38.
into
The
Oregon's
Court
comparative
held
that,
much
fault
like
contribution, a claim of common-law indemnity is unnecessary and
unjustified
"in
pursuant to Or.
pose
special
cases.
Rev.
in
Stat.
questions
31.605,
§
to
which
a
jurors
allocate
fault"
which allows any party to
fact-finder
as
to
each
party's
the
Court's
degree of fault. See id. at 38.
Thus,
holding
in
WWG
and
Eclectic
Imperial
correctly
abrogates
the
argue
that
necessity
for
Marathon's
counterclaim as it applies to plaintiff's claim for negligence,
provided a
jury is
1
fault must
31.605.
trial. But
(requesting
Allocation of
Or. Rev. Stat.
it be prior to
Summ. J. 'li 5.
§
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
asked to
apportion
fault.
1
In this
regard
be made by a fact-finder at the request of a party.
At this time, no allocation has been made, nor can
see Decl. of Daniel S. Hasson in Supp. of Mot. for
allocation of fault)
only, the motion is granted. I also note that Imperial and WWG's
third-party claim against Marathon would be
likewise precluded
with respect to negligence.
Unlike the plaintiff in Electic,
claim
for
strict
rationale
behind
liability.
Oregon's
Separate
strict
negligence or fault." Brown v.
1113
(9th
" [ c] ourts
Cir.
are
1977) .
reluctant
cases in which.
unreasonably
In
to
plaintiff also asserts a
from
liability
is
Link Belt Corp.,
Eclectic,
permit
the
"the
negligence,
not
based
on
565 F.2d 1107,
Court
apportionment
noted
of
that
damages
in
.liability results from the manufacture of an
product."
dangerous
357
Or
at
37
n.
7.
(referencing a line of cases before the Kansas Supreme Court in
which
a
product's
Similarly,
the
manufacturer
Oregon
and
Legislature
distributor
set
product
were
parties. )
liability apart
from all other torts claims covered by comparative fault.
Or.
Rev.
Stat.
§
30. 900.,
manufacturers,
sellers,
and
Under
lessors
are subject to such strict liability claims.
See also Or.
Stat.
of
§30.920
(when
the
seller
or
lessor
a
product
Rev.
is
liable) .
Thus, Marathon is correct that plaintiff's strict liability
claim is an exception to Eclectic. While,
the
Oregon
Supreme
Court
intended
to
it is unclear whether
address
manufacture of unreasonably dangerous products,
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
only
the
both the Court
and the
legislature acknowledge the distinction between ·strict
liability
and
common-law
negligence.
It
is
inappropriate
for
this Court to extend the holding in Eclectic to Marathon's claim
for
common-law
indemnity
for
plaintiff's
claim
of
strict
liability; in this regard, the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
WWG
claim
and
(doc.
Imperial's
55)
argument
is
contact
Paul
Coffin,
United
is
also
Motion
DENIED
denied
Bruch,
to
in part
as
Dismiss
and
GRANTED
unnecessary.
Courtroom Deputy for
States
Magistrate
Marathon's
Judge,
The
the
at
schedule a judicial settlement conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
June, 2015.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
counter-
in part.
Oral
parties
shall
Honorable
Thomas
541-431-4111
to
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?