390 P.3d 1109
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff, an inmate serving life without parole at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, slipped on water spilled by another inmate while in line for medication and injured his back, requiring a cane and a seven-day infirmary stay.
- Plaintiff sued the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) for negligence and premises liability seeking economic and noneconomic damages (complaint alleged up to $5,000 economic and $25,000 noneconomic damages).
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff could not prove economic damages and therefore, under ORS 30.650, could not recover noneconomic damages either.
- Plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint to specify $3.80 in economic damages (four days of missed work) and also moved for summary judgment on liability; the trial court granted defendant’s motion, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend and denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
- On appeal, the court reviewed defendant’s summary judgment motion viewing facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to produce evidence of objectively verifiable economic losses necessary under ORS 30.650.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff raised a genuine issue of fact as to economic damages | Plaintiff asserted he missed work (unit barber) and thus suffered lost earnings; sought to amend to show $3.80 lost wages | Defendant argued plaintiff produced no evidence of past earnings, work history, PRAS eligibility, or other objectively verifiable monetary loss | Held: No genuine issue; plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of economic damages, so summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether ORS 30.650 bars recovery of noneconomic damages absent economic damages | Plaintiff conceded economic damages are predicate but argued he had such damages | Defendant relied on ORS 30.650 to bar noneconomic recovery absent proof of economic damages | Held: Court applied ORS 30.650 — because plaintiff lacked proof of economic damages, noneconomic damages not recoverable |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying leave to amend to specify $3.80 in economic damages | Plaintiff argued amendment would cure the pleading deficiency and show economic damages | Defendant argued amendment would not cure lack of evidentiary support and was futile | Held: Denial affirmed — amendment would be futile because allegations alone cannot create an evidentiary issue on summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiff could rely on PRAS or constitutional right to wages to establish economic damages | Plaintiff hinted at entitlement to wages under ORS 423.020 and PRAS awards | Defendant argued no proof he missed qualifying PRAS work or was eligible for awards; also asserted inmates may lack enforceable right to compensation under state constitution | Held: Court did not decide constitutional question; concluded procedural record lacked evidence of any PRAS or wage entitlement, so plaintiff failed to show economic damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney, 262 Or App 273 (standards for reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc., 324 Or 465 (proof required to show events probably would have occurred for lost earnings)
- Wooton v. Viking Distributing Co., Inc., 136 Or App 58 (reasonable certainty standard for existence and amount of lost earnings)
- Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or 717 (procedural rules on burden to produce evidence on summary judgment)
- Voth v. State of Oregon, 190 Or App 154 (dismissing inmate negligence claim for lack of proof of economic damages)
- Cutsforth v. Kinzua Corp., 267 Or 423 (amendments that do not add new elements of damage may be allowed)
- Mitchell v. The Timbers, 163 Or App 312 (abuse of discretion standard for denying leave to amend)