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)

Download PDF
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?