Kennedy v. Wheeler
341 P.3d 728
Or.2014Background
- Plaintiff was a passenger injured when defendant Wheeler ran a stop sign; liability was admitted and a 12‑member jury was asked only to decide causation and damages.
- The jury unanimously found causation and returned a special verdict listing Economic Damages $65,386.48 and Noneconomic Damages $300,000.
- Polling showed 10 jurors agreed on the economic amount and 9 on the noneconomic amount, but not the same nine jurors for both amounts.
- Trial court accepted the verdict and entered judgment for the combined sum; defendant objected and moved for a new trial arguing the verdict violated the constitutional/rule requirement that three‑fourths of the jury render a verdict.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the trial court’s instruction that “at least the same nine jurors must agree on each answer” became the law of the case and the verdict failed that requirement.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the trial court’s instruction established the law of the case and (2) whether Oregon law requires the same nine jurors to concur on economic and noneconomic damage amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s jury instruction became binding law of the case and limited appellate review | Kennedy: instruction did not become law of the case; instruction was ambiguous and defendant preserved the statutory/constitutional challenge | Wheeler: instruction that “at least the same nine jurors must agree on each answer” fixed the rule for that trial and on appeal | Court: instruction was ambiguous and did not establish law of the case; doctrine doesn’t bind this Court here |
| Interpretation of Article VII §5(7) / ORCP 59 G(2): must the same nine jurors agree on amounts of economic and noneconomic damages? | Kennedy: ORCP 59 G(2) requires at least 9 jurors for each written finding but not that the same nine jurors must agree on separate damage amounts | Wheeler: the same nine jurors must agree on all findings that compose the verdict (including both damage amounts) | Court: ORCP 59 G(2) requires at least 9 jurors to agree on each finding and consistency (no logical inconsistency), but not that the identical nine must agree on separate damage amounts |
| Whether the jury verdict here was logically inconsistent (invalid) | Kennedy: all jurors agreed defendant caused damage; at least nine agreed on each damage amount; no logical inconsistency | Wheeler: different jurors agreed on each damage component, producing an inconsistent basis for judgment | Court: no logical inconsistency shown; verdict met constitutional and rule requirements |
| Whether Wheeler v. Huston (and related law) requires same‑juror concurrence between economic and noneconomic damages | Kennedy: Wheeler addresses improper compromise verdicts, not a same‑juror rule between damage categories | Wheeler: argued economic recovery depends on noneconomic award in practice, so same‑juror rule should apply | Court: Wheeler concerns improper compromise when liability is disputed; it doesn’t impose the same‑juror requirement here |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Strain, 212 Or 357 (1958) (holds same legally required jurors must agree on interdependent findings necessary to support judgment)
- Munger v. S.I.A.C., 243 Or 419 (1966) (applies Clark to special verdicts; inconsistent answers render verdict invalid)
- Wheeler v. Huston, 288 Or 467 (1980) (addresses improper compromise verdicts and explains when only special/economic damages may be valid)
- Fulton Ins. v. White Motor Corp., 261 Or 206 (1972) (discusses effect of unobjected jury instructions and uses “law of the case” in that context)
- Purdy v. Deere & Co., 355 Or 204 (2014) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)