Background
John Matchett filed a personal injury lawsuit against Sweed Machinery, Inc. following a workplace injury in 2021. Matchett lost several fingers while cleaning an industrial trim saw that Sweed had manufactured and sold to his employer in 1993. Matchett did not file his lawsuit until 2023, nearly 30 years after the saw’s original sale.
Matchett asserted two claims against Sweed: strict products liability and negligence. Sweed moved for summary judgment, arguing that both claims were barred by Oregon’s statute of ultimate repose, ORS 30.905(2), which precludes claims arising from products first purchased more than 10 years before the claim is filed. The trial court granted summary judgment in Sweed’s favor and rejected Matchett’s alternative argument that the remedy clause in Oregon’s Constitution invalidated the statute of ultimate repose.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding that Matchett’s claims were clearly barred by the statute of ultimate repose. Because the saw was purchased in 1993 and Matchett filed his claim in 2023—nearly three decades later—the claim fell well outside the 10-year window established by ORS 30.905(2). The temporal gap was undisputed and dispositive as a matter of law.
The court also rejected Matchett’s argument that post-sale conduct by Sweed (such as failure to warn or failure to retrofit the saw with newer safety features) could circumvent the statute of repose. The record contained no evidence of any latent defect discovered or discoverable after the sale that would constitute independent post-sale negligence. Accordingly, both the strict products liability and negligence claims were barred by the statute of ultimate repose.
The court further agreed with the trial court’s rejection of Matchett’s remedy clause challenge, noting that existing Oregon Supreme Court precedent forecloses such constitutional arguments against ORS 30.905.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon’s 10-year statute of ultimate repose in ORS 30.905(2) bars both strict products liability and negligence claims when the product was first purchased more than 10 years before suit is filed.
- Post-sale conduct by a manufacturer (such as failure to warn or retrofit) will not revive a time-barred claim unless there is specific evidence of a latent defect discovered after the sale and genuine post-sale negligence.
- A remedy clause challenge to the statute of ultimate repose is foreclosed by Oregon Supreme Court precedent and will not succeed on appeal.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the temporal bar under the statute of repose is undisputed and dispositive.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict application of Oregon’s statute of ultimate repose and confirms its effectiveness as a bar to stale product liability claims. The 10-year window provides manufacturers with temporal certainty and protection from claims decades after a product’s sale, even when a user is injured long after purchase. The decision is significant for product manufacturers and insurers in Oregon, as it establishes that claims filed 20, 25, or 30 years after a product’s sale will be summarily dismissed without reaching the merits—absent clear evidence of latent-defect discovery and independent post-sale negligence.
For plaintiffs and their counsel, the decision underscores the critical importance of diligent investigation and prompt filing following workplace injuries involving older equipment. A lengthy delay between injury and litigation, while perhaps understandable in cases where causation is unclear, will result in statutory dismissal regardless of the strength of the underlying claim on the facts.