Jean Howell v. Christopher Boyle
673 F.3d 1054
9th Cir.2011Background
- Howell was injured by Officer Boyle while walking across a Beaverton highway in 2007; she sued Boyle and the City for economic and non-economic damages.
- Jury found Howell and Boyle 50% negligent; district court reduced damages under Oregon comparative negligence, awarding Howell $507,500.
- OTCA cap at the time limited recovery against a public body to $100,000 economic and $100,000 non-economic; cap did not apply to the 2007 damages due to the 2009 statutory changes.
- Boyle and City sought to apply the OTCA cap of $200,000 total damages; the district court refused, ruling the cap unconstitutional as an emasculated remedy under the Oregon remedy clause.
- The district court’s ruling raised constitutional questions under Oregon’s remedy clause, focusing on whether Howell’s action is protected and whether a $200,000 cap is constitutionally adequate.
- The Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Oregon Supreme Court, requesting guidance on remedy-clause protection and the constitutionality of the $200,000 cap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy clause protection irrespective of comparative negligence | Howell argues her action is protected by the remedy clause despite comparative negligence. | Boyle and the City contend the remedy clause does not protect the action because of Howell’s contributory negligence. | Certified questions; no merits ruling on protection. |
| Constitutionality of the $200,000 cap if action is protected | If protected, cap is an unconstitutional emasculation given damages far exceeding $200,000. | Cap provides a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy. | Certified questions; no merits ruling on adequacy of cap. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 23 P.3d 333 (Or. 2001) (remedy clause protection tied to absolute common-law rights at 1857 ratification)
- Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 175 P.3d 418 (Or. 2007) (controversy over statutory substitute remedy and eth of emasculated remedy)
- Ackerman v. OHSU Med. Grp., 227 P.3d 744 (Or. App. 2010) (acknowledges factors for assessing emasculated-remedy adequacy under Ackerman rule)
- Lawson v. Hoke, 119 P.3d 210 (Or. 2005) (contributory negligence historically could bar recovery at common law)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, L.P., 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizes certification as a vehicle to interpret state-law questions)