426 P.3d 235
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries (above‑knee traumatic amputation and other severe harm) after being struck by defendant's garbage truck; defendant admitted liability and the case proceeded to damages trial.
- Jury awarded $3,021,922 in economic damages and $10,500,000 in noneconomic damages (total $13,521,922).
- Defendant moved posttrial to reduce noneconomic damages to $500,000 under ORS 31.710(1); the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment reflecting the cap.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing that applying ORS 31.710(1) violated the remedy clause of Article I, §10 of the Oregon Constitution.
- The court of appeals reviewed precedent (notably Horton, Vasquez, and Rains) and concluded that applying the statutory noneconomic damages cap to this grievously injured plaintiff was unconstitutional; it reversed and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the jury award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying ORS 31.710(1) to reduce noneconomic damages violates Article I, §10 (remedy clause) | Applying the $500,000 cap to a grievously injured plaintiff denies a "substantial" remedy and thus violates the remedy clause | The cap is constitutional; prior cases (Greist, OTCA cases) support that $500,000 plus economic damages can be a substantial remedy; alternatively court should limit cap rather than invalidate | Applying ORS 31.710(1) here violated Article I, §10; judgment reversed and remanded to reinstate jury award |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or. App. 503, 406 P.3d 225 (2017) (held ORS 31.710(1) unconstitutional as applied to a grievously injured plaintiff)
- Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 289 Or. App. 672, 410 P.3d 336 (2018) (applied Vasquez to hold cap unconstitutional as applied to severely injured plaintiffs)
- Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016) (reaffirmed remedy clause protections and set categories for assessing legislative alterations of remedies)
- Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc., 288 Or. App. 476, 406 P.3d 66 (2017) (discussed Horton's categories of remedial legislation)
- Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or. 281, 906 P.2d 789 (1995) (addressed damages in wrongful‑death context; court of appeals declined to extend it to ORS 31.710(1) cases)
- Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or. 83, 23 P.3d 333 (2001) (overruled by Horton on remedy‑clause analysis)
- State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or. 46, 217 P.3d 659 (2009) (principle that courts must enforce constitutional provisions over statute when application is unconstitutional)