Eastman v. Lane Bryant 4519 LLC

744 November 12, 2026 No. 1114 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Christina EASTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANE BRYANT #4519 LLC; Lane Bryant, Inc.; and Lane Bryant Brands OPCO, LLC, Defendants-Respondents. Marion County Circuit Court 23CV25595; A188599 Audrey J. Broyles, Judge. Submitted October 22, 2026. Christina Eastman filed the brief pro se. Gregory A. Reinert and Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC filed the brief for respondents. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 744 (2026) 745 PER CURIAM Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s grant of sum- mary judgment in her civil lawsuit raising product liabil- ity, negligence, and other tort claims relating to injuries she allegedly incurred from wearing a pair of Lane Bryant jeans. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We affirm. When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, “we view the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—in this case, plaintiff— and determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether defendant, as the moving party, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Eller v. ABM Industries Inc., 349 Or App 381, 383, 591 P3d 709 (2026). In determining whether a moving party is entitled to summary judgment, “[w]e view the record that was before the trial court in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the party opposing sum- mary judgment, and we examine whether no objectively rea- sonable juror could find in plaintiff’s favor on the question at issue.” Mesch v. Unity Center for Behavioral Health, 349 Or App 463, 466, 593 P3d 648, rev allowed, 375 Or 579 (2026) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint raised a number of civil claims that hinged on her ability to demonstrate some connection between the content of the jeans and her skin reaction. After the parties engaged in discovery, defendant moved for sum- mary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that there was any harmful material in the jeans or that the jeans caused the adverse reaction. Plaintiff filed a response but did not provide any evidence as to the content of the jeans, nor did she provide evidence demonstrating that any substance in the jeans caused the adverse skin reaction. Other than inferences that may be drawn from suspicious timing (that plaintiff put on a new pair of jeans and her skin was reactive when she took the jeans off), the record contains no evidence connecting the jeans to the skin con- dition. Without other evidence that the jeans caused the injury, that timing alone is insufficient to infer causation. Accordingly, on this record, no reasonable juror could deter- mine that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the jeans. 746 Eastman v. Lane Bryant #4519 LLC Affirmed.