# Brown v. Western Farmers Association

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 26, 1974 · 268 Or. 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599466

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN Et Ux, Appellants, v. WESTERN FARMERS ASSOCIATION, Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 26, 1974
- **Citations:** 268 Or. 470; 521 P.2d 537; 1974 Ore. LEXIS 479
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Holman
- **Judges:** Tongue, Denecke, O'Connell, Holman
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599466

## Opinion text

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with that part of the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice which holds that the feed was unreasonably dangerous to plaintiffs' property (chickens) as contemplated by Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and I would therefore hold that the complaint states a cause of action under that section. Unreasonably dangerous is merely the opposite of reasonably safe.
*486 If I were writing upon a clean slate, I would limit the application of Section 402A (contrary to its terms) to injuries to the person because it was the human carnage caused by defective products that furnished the impetus for the application of a rule of strict liability to products. See- the history of produets liability as outlined in Wights v. Staff Jennings, 241 Or 301 , 405 P2d 624 (1965), and the concurring opinion of Holman, J., in Price v. Gatlin, 241 Or 315, 318 , 405 P2d 502 (1965). However, this court has twice allowed recovery for property damage in a products liability case in conformance with Section 402A. Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc., 262 Or 293 , 498 P2d 766 (1972); Brownell v. White Motor Corp., 260 Or 251 , 490 P2d 184 (1971).
The results in Price v. Gatlin and State ex rel Western Seed v. Campbell, 250 Or 262 , 442 P2d 215 (1968), cert. denied, 393 US 1093 , 89 S Ct 862 , 21 L Ed 2d 784 (1969), are not to the contrary because in neither of these cases was there any damage to property caused by the defective product. There was merely the loss of anticipated business profits because the product did not perform to expectation. Section 402 A is specifically limited by its terms to products “unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property.” There is nothing in either the body of the section or in the comments which follow that indicates there can be a recovery of any kind in the absence of damage to person or property.
Where there is damage to person or property and the law of damages would normally allow loss of anticipated business profits resulting therefrom, recovery for such loss should follow.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599466. Public record. Not legal advice.