Cole

MEMORANDUM *

We reverse and remand in part, dismiss in part and affirm in part.

I. Strict Liability Claims

At trial, Cole advanced two theories of strict liability: design defect and failure to warn. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on Cole’s claim of a design defect because it concluded that he had not offered evidence of a safer alternative design. Under then-existent Oregon law, the district court may have been correct. However, after the district court issued its decision, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the idea that plaintiffs must always offer “evidence that the magnitude of the product’s risk outweighs its utility, which often is demonstrated by proving that a safer design alternative was both practicable and feasi *685 ble.” 1 And the Oregon Supreme Court suggested that even in cases in which a jury requires evidence in order to determine the ordinary consumer’s expectations, evidence other than proof that “a safer design alternative was both practicable and feasible” may suffice. 2 In light of recent precedent, we reverse and remand on this issue.

Defendant also argues that its product is not defective as a matter of law because the ladder…