278 Or. App. 77
Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- Plaintiff, an operator, was severely injured and rendered paraplegic when a hydraulic ram created a “pinch point” and crushed him while he cleaned a bale-cutting machine manufactured and installed by Double Press Mfg.
- Plaintiff admitted partial fault (jury found him 40% at fault) and sued defendant for negligence; products liability was dismissed prior to trial.
- Jury awarded $2,231,817 in economic damages and $8,100,000 in noneconomic damages. After apportionment for comparative fault, judgment reflected plaintiff’s 60% recovery.
- Defendant moved pre- and post-verdict to cap noneconomic damages at $500,000 under ORS 31.710(1); trial court denied motions relying on Lakin v. Senco.
- On appeal defendant argued that applying the statutory cap did not violate Article I, §17 (jury trial) and that Lakin should not control; the appellate court affirmed, holding Lakin controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 31.710(1)’s $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages may be applied to reduce the jury verdict | Lakin and subsequent Supreme Court decisions protect a jury’s assessment of noneconomic damages under Article I, §17; applying the cap would violate the right to jury trial | The statute should apply; Lakin is outdated after Smothers and does not govern Article I, §17 questions here | The appellate court held Lakin controlling and affirmed that applying ORS 31.710(1) to reduce the jury’s noneconomic award would violate Article I, §17, so the cap was not applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 62 (1999) (statutory noneconomic-damage cap violates Article I, §17 right to jury trial)
- Foster v. Miramontes, 352 Or. 401 (2012) (right to jury trial protects claims categorized as civil/at law even without precise historical analog)
- Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth, 354 Or. 150 (2013) (applying ORS 31.710(1) to medical-malpractice jury award violates Article I, §17)
- Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or. 83 (2001) (reassessment of remedies-clause jurisprudence; discussed but not held controlling here)
- Tenold v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 127 Or. App. 511 (1994) (prior case on re-examination of jury facts; relied on in Lakin)