Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 410 P.3d 336

Kevin Rains suffered catastrophic injuries (paraplegia) when a defective board broke; jury awarded Kevin economic damages $5,237,700 and noneconomic $3,125,000; wife Mitzi awarded noneconomic $1,012,500. Jury found Weyerhaeuser 45%, Stayton 30%, Kevin 25% at fault.
Defendant Weyerhaeuser moved to reduce noneconomic awards to $500,000 under ORS 31.710(1); trial court denied, relying on Article I, §17 of the Oregon Constitution and entered limited judgment for plaintiffs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (and later the Oregon Supreme Court) grappled with whether Article I, §17 or Article I, §10 (the remedy clause) preclude applying the statutory $500,000 noneconomic cap.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Horton v. OHSU changed the analytical framework by: (1) rejecting Smothers’s 1857-common-law test for the remedy clause and (2) holding §17 does not independently forbid statutory damage caps; remanded to consider Article I, §10 under the Horton framework.
On remand the Court of Appeals considered waiver/law-of-the-case arguments, whether a spousal loss-of-consortium claim is an "injury to person, property, or reputation," and whether applying ORS 31.710(1) would leave plaintiffs without a "substantial" remedy under Article I, §10.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article I, §17 bars application of ORS 31.710(1)	Rains: §17 prevents limiting noneconomic damages	Weyerhaeuser: §17 does not bar cap (statute applies)	Not reached on remand—Horton foreclosed §17 challenge
Whether plaintiffs waived remedy-clause challenge by not raising it earlier	Rains: Horton changed law; remedy argument properly presented on remand	Weyerhaeuser: Plaintiffs forfeited issue by not urging it on initial appeal	No waiver; court exercised discretion to consider the remedy-clause argument
Whether a spousal loss-of-consortium claim is protected by Article I, §10 (injury to person/property/reputation)	Mitzi: Modern consortium is emotional injury to person, thus protected	Weyerhaeuser/AOI: Consortium is a "relational" or non-property interest not covered by §10	Held: Loss of consortium here is an injury to person and falls within Article I, §10
Whether applying ORS 31.710(1) to these awards violates Article I, §10 (substantial remedy) — as-applied challenge	Rains: Cap would leave grievously injured plaintiffs with only a paltry fraction of recovery; no quid pro quo; unconstitutional as applied	Weyerhaeuser: Cap provides substantial remedy (plaintiffs still recover significant amount); remedy clause inapplicable or satisfied	Held: Applying the $500,000 cap would leave Kevin and Mitzi without a "substantial" remedy under Article I, §10 and thus violates the remedy clause; limited judgment for plaintiffs affirmed

Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168 (2016) (reframed remedy-clause analysis; rejected Smothers; held §17 does not independently forbid statutory damage caps)
Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or. 83 (2001) (prior remedy-clause framework overruled by Horton)
Juarez v. Windsor Rock Products, Inc., 341 Or. 160 (2006) (analyzed whether relational/wrongful-death claims allege injury to person or property under §10)
Lakin v. Senco Prods., Inc., 329 Or. 62 (1999) (overruled in part by Horton on §17/§10 analysis)
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or.App. 503 (2017) (applied Horton to conclude ORS 31.710(1) can be unconstitutional as applied; guided substantial-remedy analysis)
Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or. 281 (1995) (discussed in comparing statutory caps; different statutory context)
Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth, 354 Or. 150 (2013) (earlier precedent about historical/common-law approach under §17)
Philibert v. Kluser, 360 Or. 698 (2016) (recognized negligently inflicted emotional distress as an injury to person)
Kennedy v. Wheeler, 356 Or. 518 (2014) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)