Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the Oregon Tort Claims Act's $3 million damages limit for state employees violated the Oregon Constitution's remedy and jury-trial provisions. The court overruled Smothers v. Transfer, Inc. to the extent it tied the remedy clause to Oregon common law as it existed in 1857, and held that the statutory limit was constitutionally permissible as applied to the defendant physician. The court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dr. Harrison was entitled to discretionary immunity for the surgical error.
- Whether the Oregon Tort Claims Act's $3 million damages limit could constitutionally be applied to a state employee.
- Whether application of the statutory limit violated the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution.
- Whether Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution imposes a substantive limit on the legislature's authority to define civil damages.
- Whether Article VII (Amended), section 3, imposes a substantive limit on the legislature's authority to define civil damages.
Holdings
- Article I, section 10, does not lock the courts or legislature into a static conception of Oregon common law as it existed in 1857. Smothers v. Transfer, Inc. was overruled to the extent it held otherwise.
- Article I, section 10, imposes a substantive limit on legislative authority, but it permits the legislature, within constitutional limits, to alter common-law duties and remedies, substitute one remedy for another, and eliminate causes of action when their underlying premises have changed. A complete denial of a remedy, or an insubstantial remedy for breach of an unchanged duty, remains constitutionally impermissible.
- Applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's $3 million damages limit to Dr. Harrison was constitutionally permissible under Article I, section 10.
- Article I, section 17, protects the procedural right of plaintiffs and defendants to a jury trial for claims and defenses customarily tried to a jury in 1857 and cases of like nature, but it does not substantively limit the legislature's authority to define the nature or extent of damages available in a civil case. Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc. was overruled to the contrary extent.
- Article VII (Amended), section 3, prohibits courts from setting aside an individual jury verdict because it is contrary to the weight of the evidence, but it does not substantively limit the legislature's authority to determine the nature or extent of civil damages.
Key quotations
“As our early cases recognized, common-law causes of action and remedies provide a baseline for measuring the extent to which subsequent legislation conforms to the basic principles of the remedy clause—ensuring the availability of a remedy for persons injured in their person, property, and reputation.” (at 218-19)
“For that reason, Smothers clearly erred in holding that the remedy clause locks courts and the legislature into a static conception of the common law as it existed in 1857.” (at 218-19)
Factual background
A six-month-old child developed a cancerous liver mass and underwent surgery at Oregon Health & Science University. During the operation, Dr. Harrison and another physician inadvertently transected blood vessels leading to the child's liver, resulting in a liver transplant, removal of the spleen, additional surgeries, and lifetime monitoring. After OHSU and Harrison admitted liability, a jury awarded $6,071,190.38 in economic damages and $6 million in noneconomic damages.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued OHSU, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Durant, and Pediatric Surgical Associates after an injury during surgery. Pediatric Surgical Associates obtained summary judgment, and Dr. Durant was dismissed pursuant to an agreement under which OHSU and Harrison admitted liability. A jury awarded approximately $12 million in economic and noneconomic damages. The trial court reduced the judgment against OHSU to the $3 million statutory limit but held that applying the limit to Harrison violated Article I, section 10, Article I, section 17, and Article VII (Amended), section 3 of the Oregon Constitution. Harrison appealed directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Multnomah County Circuit Court for further proceedings and entry of a judgment consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision, including application of the Tort Claims Act limitation to Dr. Harrison.