Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
355 Or. 319, 325 P.3d 707 (2014)
- Written by Tiffany Hester, JD
Facts
The government hired Fujitec America (defendant) to modernize an elevator by installing updated parts. The contract stipulated a lump-sum payment and did not include any provision requiring Fujitec to supply or receive reimbursement for the parts. However, the contract did reserve the government’s right to supply Fujitec with the necessary parts. When Fujitec completed the job, a government officer sent a letter congratulating Fujitec for “the best possible products at the best possible cost-effective prices.” A few years later, the elevator dropped without warning, injuring two people inside, Linda Two Two and Patricia Fodge (plaintiffs). Two Two and Fodge sued Fujitec for strict products liability, among other claims. Two Two and Fodge alleged that Fujitec had supplied defective elevator parts. However, Two Two and Fodge did not provide any evidence that Fujitec billed or received payment for the parts. The trial court granted summary judgment against Two Two and Fodge on the strict products-liability claim because Fujitec did not sell the elevator parts. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that strict liability applies to those who supply products, not those who merely provide services. Two Two and Fodge appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
