Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
261 P.3d 1215
| Or. | 2011Background
- Decedent died after Combined Transport's spilled glass panes on I-5 caused stoppage; Clemmer collided with decedent's pickup and caused fatal fire; Clemmer admitted negligence; plaintiff sought to admit Clemmer's intoxication as relevant to causation or fault; trial court excluded intoxication evidence in limine; jury found Combined Transport 22% and Clemmer 78% at fault; Court of Appeals affirmed exclusion of intoxication on causation but allowed it for apportionment of fault; Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve pleading and evidentiary issues surrounding intoxication evidence in multi-defendant negligence actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clemmer’s intoxication is relevant to causation. | Clemmer’s intoxication could affect total causation if it altered the accident’s course. | Clemmer’s intoxication could influence the substantial factor analysis. | Intoxication not relevant to causation; it is relevant to apportionment of fault. |
| Pleading requirements to admit unpleaded codefendant negligence for fault apportionment. | Combined Transport could rely on unpleaded intoxication via cross-claim. | Need affirmative pleading of the unpleaded negligence to enable fault comparison. | Unpleaded codefendant negligence must be affirmatively pleaded as an offense; cross-claim was improper for this purpose. |
| Whether a cross-claim for contribution can substitute for an affirmative defense to allow intoxication evidence for fault apportionment. | Cross-claim could serve the function of an affirmative defense. | Cross-claim is inappropriate to substitute for an affirmative defense; pleading defect disallowed. | Cross-claim cannot be treated as an affirmative defense under ORCP 12; pleading required; but in this case, corrective reasoning allowed limited consideration for apportionment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. Walsh & Sons Trucking Co., Ltd., 337 Or. 319 (2004) (affirmed substantial factor causation concept; causation tied to whole-set of circumstances)
- Smith v. J.C. Penney Co., 269 Or. 643, 525 P.2d 1299 (1974) (rejected allowing unpleaded comparison via Restatement § 433 in multi-defendant case)
- McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical, 270 Or. 375, 528 P.2d 522 (1974) (multi-defendant causation; not supporting perfect subtraction of insignificance in all cases)
- Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors, 292 Or. 590, 642 P.2d 624 (1982) (substantial factor test for causation; relativity in determining liability)
- Joshi v. Providence Health System, 342 Or. 152, 149 P.3d 1164 (2006) (expert testimony on causation; not a multi-defendant fault comparison case)
- Furrer v. Talent Irrigation District, 258 Or. 494, 466 P.2d 605 (1970) (substantial factor concept; limits of jury instruction on causation)
- Ritter v. Beals, 225 Or. 504, 358 P.2d 1080 (1961) (affirmative defenses must inform plaintiff of proof and provide trial foundation)
- Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 315 Or. 57, 843 P.2d 400 (1992) (pleading affirmative defenses; ORCP guidance on pleading)