2017 ORS 646A.506¹
Prohibited conduct

(1) A commercial user may not remanufacture, retrofit, sell, contract to sell or resell, lease, sublet or otherwise place in the stream of commerce a crib that is unsafe for an infant using the crib.

(2) A crib is presumed to be unsafe pursuant to ORS 646A.500 (Legislative findings) to 646A.514 (Scope of remedies) if it does not conform to the following standards:

(a) 16 C.F.R. part 1508;

(b) 16 C.F.R. part 1509;

(c) 16 C.F.R. part 1303; and

(d) American Society for Testing Materials Voluntary Standards F966-90, F1169.88, F1822 and F406.

(3) Cribs that are presumed to be unsafe under subsection (2) of this section include but are not limited to cribs with any of the following features or characteristics:

(a) Corner posts that extend more than one-sixteenth of an inch;

(b) Spaces between side slats more than two and three-eighths inches;

(c) Mattress supports that can be easily dislodged from any point of the crib. A mattress support can be easily dislodged if it cannot withstand a 25-pound upward force from underneath the crib;

(d) Cutout designs on the end panels;

(e) Rail height dimensions that do not conform to the following:

(A) The height of the rail and end panel as measured from the top of the rail or panel in its lowest position to the top of the mattress support in its highest position is at least nine inches; or

(B) The height of the rail and end panel as measured from the top of the rail or panel in its highest position to the top of the mattress support in its lowest position is at least 26 inches;

(f) Any screws, bolts or hardware that is loose or not secured;

(g) Sharp edges, points, rough surfaces or any wood surfaces that are not smooth and free from splinters, splits or cracks; or

(h) Cribs with tears in mesh or fabric sides.

(4) An individual may not remanufacture, retrofit, sell, contract to sell or resell, lease, sublet or otherwise place in the stream of commerce a crib that is unsafe for an infant using the crib. [Formerly 646.503]

Law Review Cita­tions

52 WLR 451 (2016)

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condi­tion requiring repair, presump­tion does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 329 (1983)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646A—Trade Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.