Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
437 P.3d 1107
Or.2019Background
- Plaintiff, a worker, was crushed by a hay-baling machine he was cleaning and became paraplegic; he had received workers' compensation benefits for the workplace injury.
- Plaintiff sued Double Press Manufacturing (defendant) for negligence in design/manufacture/installation; jury awarded economic and $8,100,000 noneconomic damages, reduced for 40% comparative fault, yielding a judgment of $6,199,090.
- Defendant argued ORS 31.710(1) capped plaintiff's noneconomic damages at $500,000; trial court denied reduction relying on Lakin; Court of Appeals initially affirmed but then reconsidered after this court overruled Lakin in Horton.
- On rehearing the Court of Appeals rejected the statutory-exception argument but held the cap violated Article I, section 10 (remedy clause); one concurring judge thought the statutory exception for claims "subject to ORS chapter 656" applied.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, avoided constitutional questions, and affirmed on statutory grounds: the noneconomic damages cap does not apply because plaintiff’s third‑party tort claim is "subject to" ORS chapter 656.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third‑party tort claim by a worker is a "claim subject to ORS chapter 656" (and therefore exempt from the ORS 31.710(1) noneconomic‑damages cap) | Vasquez: chapter 656's provisions govern third‑party claims (election, insurer lien, distribution, priority), so a third‑party tort claim is "subject to" chapter 656 and falls within the statutory exception | Double Press: "claim" in chapter 656 primarily means a workers' compensation insurance claim; "subject to" means authorized by or pursuant to chapter 656, so exception was meant to cover only compensation claims, not separate third‑party tort suits | Court: statutory text and context show "claims subject to ORS chapter 656" reasonably includes third‑party claims governed/affected by chapter 656 (e.g., election, lien, distribution), so plaintiff's claim is exempt from the noneconomic damages cap |
| Whether to decide the constitutional challenge (remedy clause) to ORS 31.710(1) | Vasquez urged that Horton supports finding the cap unconstitutional as applied | Double Press relied on pre‑Horton precedent (Greist) and urged constitutional review in its favor | Court avoided the constitutional question because the statutory‑interpretation ground (chapter 656 exception) provided a complete answer; judgment affirmed on that statutory ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakin v. Senco Products, 329 Or. 62, 987 P.2d 463 (1999) (held statutory noneconomic‑damages cap violated jury trial provision of Article I, §17)
- Horton v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016) (overruled Lakin and addressed constitutional limits on damages caps)
- Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or. 281, 906 P.2d 789 (1995) (earlier decision rejecting remedy‑clause challenge to damages cap as applied in that case)
- Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 325 Or. 55, 934 P.2d 382 (1997) (construed "claim" broadly to include both workers' compensation and tort causes of action)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993) (statutory interpretation principles; text and context control legislative intent)