Legal Opinion

McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 2001No. CC 9601-00689; CA A98578; SC S46683PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKulongoski, J.

The primary issue on review in this product liability civil action is whether plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to establish that the 1994 Toyota 4Runner was designed defectively. Plaintiff was injured when the 1994 4Runner vehicle in which she was riding as a passenger rolled over. Plaintiff sued defendants — the manufacturer, distributor, and seller of the 4Runner — alleging that the 1994 4Runner was dangerously defective and unreasonably dangerous because its design rendered it unstable and prone to roll over. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded noneconomic…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Honda Motor Co. v. ObergSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. State v. ShawOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Branham v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  3. Roop v. PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING, CO.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  4. Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API