Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that a negligence claim brought by an injured worker against a third-party machine manufacturer was exempt from Oregon's statutory cap on noneconomic damages because it was a claim subject to ORS chapter 656. The court affirmed the judgment without reaching the parties' constitutional arguments concerning the damages cap.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff's third-party negligence claim arising from a workplace injury was a claim subject to ORS chapter 656 and therefore exempt from the $500,000 noneconomic-damages cap in ORS 31.710(1).
- Whether the court needed to reach the parties' constitutional arguments concerning the validity of the noneconomic-damages cap under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution.
Holdings
- The phrase "claims subject to ORS chapter 656" in ORS 31.710(1) encompasses third-party claims brought by or on behalf of workers injured in the course of employment when the claim is affected or modified by provisions of ORS chapter 656. Plaintiff's claim therefore fell within the statutory exception and was not subject to the $500,000 cap.
- The court did not reach the parties' constitutional arguments because the statutory exception provided a complete basis for affirming the judgment.
Key quotations
“The text of ORS 31.710(1), viewed in context, excludes from the noneconomic damages cap third-party claims by or on behalf of workers injured in the course of their employment, such as the claim brought by plaintiff here.” (364 Or. at 633-34)
“The bottom line is that the text of ORS 31.710(1), viewed in isolation, appears ambiguous.” (364 Or. at 621)
Factual background
Plaintiff was injured while cleaning a hay-baling machine during the course of his employment. He entered the machine while it remained in automatic mode, and a hydraulic ram crushed his spine, leaving him paraplegic. Plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits and then sued the machine's manufacturer, seller, and installer for negligence. The jury awarded economic and noneconomic damages and found plaintiff 40 percent at fault.
Procedural history
A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on his negligence claims against the manufacturer, seller, and installer of a hay-baling machine, awarding economic and noneconomic damages and finding plaintiff 40 percent at fault. The circuit court reduced the verdict for comparative fault but declined to apply the $500,000 noneconomic-damages cap under ORS 31.710(1), relying on Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed on Lakin grounds, withdrew that opinion after Lakin was overruled by Horton v. Oregon Health Science University, and again affirmed, concluding that the cap violated the Oregon Constitution; the Supreme Court affirmed on the alternative statutory ground that the claim fell within the exception for claims subject to ORS chapter 656.