Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co.

Heriberto Hernandez (plaintiff) was a maintenance mechanic for Westwood Manufacturing Company (Westwood). Hernandez discovered a new Belsaw at one of Westwood’s worksites. The Belsaw was a type of table saw manufactured by Barbo Machinery Company (Barbo) (defendant), and the sawblade was fully enclosed in a cabinet. Hernandez went to inspect the Belsaw, which Hernandez did not realize was turned on. Hernandez attempted to determine whether the Belsaw was turned off but was unable to find the on/off switch in any of the customary locations. When Hernandez opened the cabinet door and crouched to look inside, Hernandez slipped on sawdust and his right hand hit the spinning sawblade, partially amputating it. Hernandez filed a products-liability action against Barbo, arguing that the Belsaw was dangerously defective because it lacked sufficient safety features. Barbo raised a comparative-fault affirmative defense, arguing that Hernandez was at fault because he had (1) knowingly encountered the risk of injury by opening the sawblade cabinet before ensuring the Belsaw was turned off, and (2) negligently crouched on slippery sawdust to inspect the Belsaw. At trial, Hernandez requested a jury instruction explaining that his negligent failure to discover or guard against the Belsaw’s defects could not be counted against him in a comparative-fault analysis. The trial judge refused and instead instructed the jury that fault could be attributed to Hernandez for any of the conduct Barbo alleged in its affirmative defense. The jury ruled for Barbo, finding that Barbo was 49.5 percent at fault and Hernandez was 50.5 percent at fault. Hernandez appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court’s failure to issue Hernandez’s requested jury instruction constituted reversible error. Barbo appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.