502 P.3d 1144
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Rear-end collision: defendant Carter struck the plaintiffs' stopped car at low speed; both Roberta and Kevin Haas later underwent spinal surgeries for neck/back symptoms they attributed to the crash.
- Both plaintiffs had preexisting spinal or degenerative conditions (Roberta had multiple prior spinal surgeries and a spine described as a "mess"; Kevin had prior mild neck injuries and age-related degeneration).
- At trial plaintiffs requested two UCJI causation instructions: the uniform "but-for" instruction and the "substantial-factor" instruction; the court gave only the but-for instruction and a UCJI previous-infirm-condition instruction on damages; jury returned verdict for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to give the substantial-factor instruction whenever evidence shows a preexisting condition made the plaintiff more susceptible to injury.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for legal error (viewing evidence in favor of plaintiffs) and affirmed, holding the substantial-factor instruction is not categorically required when a plaintiff is merely more susceptible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the substantial-factor instruction must be given whenever a plaintiff's preexisting condition made them more susceptible to injury | Haas: a preexisting condition that increases susceptibility is ipso facto a causative factor requiring the substantial-factor instruction | Carter/State Farm: susceptibility is not a concurrent cause; substantial-factor applies only when multiple causes actually contributed | No. The court rejected a categorical rule; susceptibility alone does not prove the condition actively contributed and does not require the instruction |
| Whether the substantial-factor instruction is limited to cases with multiple tortfeasors | Haas: not limited to tortfeasors; applies when multiple factual causes exist | Carter: instruction only applies when multiple tortfeasors acted concurrently | Court: not limited to tortfeasors, but applies only when multiple causes (negligent or non-negligent) materially contributed to the injury |
| Whether but-for plus previous-infirm-condition instructions were adequate | Haas: requested both instructions; argued but-for alone could mislead the jury | Defendants: but-for plus previous infirm condition instruction properly instructed jury on causation and damages | Court: but-for instruction plus the previous-infirm-condition damages instruction adequately addressed causation and liability; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Joshi v. Providence Health System, 342 Or 152 (2006) (discusses when but-for is inadequate and when substantial-factor standard applies)
- Dewey v. A. F. Klaveness & Co., 233 Or 515 (1963) (source of substantial-factor causation formulation)
- Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or 1 (2011) (application of substantial-factor test in concurrent-cause contexts)
- Wright v. Turner, 368 Or 207 (2021) (holding each tortfeasor liable if each was a substantial factor)
- Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp., 271 Or App 411 (2015) (distinguishes susceptibility from active causal contribution in related context)
- State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (2016) (noting but-for and substantial-factor usually coincide and Joshi analysis)
- Elk Creek Management Co. v. Gilbert, 353 Or 565 (2013) (citing Joshi on causation standards)