Howell v. Boyle, 298 P.3d 1

This case arises from a federal diversity action for personal injuries after a police officer allegedly caused a collision; jury found 50/50 fault and damages around $1 million; court reduced damages by half for comparative fault; OTCA cap of $200,000 was imposed, but trial court held it unconstitutional under the remedy clause; Ninth Circuit certified two questions to Oregon Supreme Court; court ultimately rules on the second question, finding the cap constitutionally permissible.
Plaintiff alleged the cap would emasculate the remedy guaranteed by Article I, section 10; defendants argued the cap is a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy.
The court discusses Smothers v. Gresham Transfer and its two-step framework for remedy clause challenges, assuming a common-law remedy existed in 1857, then assessing whether the modern remedy is constitutionally adequate.
The court notes Hale’s “substantial remedy” standard and Clarke’s qualification that an emasculated remedy is unconstitutional; it rejects a strict requirement of full restoration of damages.
The court emphasizes that the legislature may modify form and measure of recovery so long as the remaining remedy is substantial and does not leave the plaintiff wholly without a remedy; in this case, the cap yields a substantial remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remedy clause protects plaintiff’s 1857 common-law remedy.	Plaintiff contends 1857 remedy would exist; the cap deprives full recovery.	Defendants contend the cap provides a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy.	Assumed that a remedy existed; cap found constitutionally adequate.
Whether the $200,000 cap is constitutionally adequate under the remedy clause.	Argues cap is an emasculated, unconstitutional remedy.	Argues cap is a substantial remedy that preserves a remedy.	Yes; cap is constitutionally permissible because the remaining remedy is substantial.

Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83 (2001) (establishes remedy clause two-step framework; substantial remedy concept)
Clarke v. OHSU, 343 Or 581 (2007) (damages cap unconstitutional for some defendants; outlines substantial remedy concept)
Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508 (1989) (remedy need not be identical but must be substantial; introduces quid pro quo idea)
Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281 (1995) (cap on noneconomic damages upheld when remedy substantial; history of repair of remedy)
Neher v. Chartier, 319 Or 417 (1994) (warns against leaving plaintiffs without any remedy; reinforces restorative standard)
Lawson v. Hoke, 339 Or 253 (2005) (historic contributory negligence framework referenced in Smothers)
Jensen v. Whitlow, 334 Or 412 (2002) (assumes remedy exists; discusses as-applied challenges to cap)