Miller v. Ford Motor Co.

"Under ORS 30.905(2), when an Oregon product liability action involves a product that was manufactured in a state that has no statute of repose for an equivalent civil action, then the action in Oregon also is not subject to a statute of repose."

Ford appealed a district court judgment that challenged the court's interpretation of ORS 30.905(2); the Ninth Circuit then certified the question to the Oregon Supreme Court.  The Ninth Circuit sought an interpretation of ORS 30.905(2) pursuant to the intention of the legislature.  Based on recordings from House floor debates, the Oregon legislature expressed the intent of the legislation as creating "look-away" provisions that would protect Oregonian plaintiffs by "allowing them to bring their claims involving out-of-state manufacturers in Oregon courts, without significantly expanding manufacturer liability."  The Court held that "under ORS 30.905(2), when an Oregon product liability action involves a product that was manufactured in a state that has no statute of repose for an equivalent civil action, then the action in Oregon also is not subject to a statute of repose."  The certified question is answered.