Title: Delashmutt v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Filed:  December 9, 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

BRIAN J. DELASHMUTT, SCOTT	
GALLANT and GARY F. OXLEY,	

	Petitioners,				

	v. 						

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General	
of the State of Oregon,			

	Respondent.	

_____________________________________

LINDA C. LOVE,				

	Petitioner,				

	v. 						

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General	
of the State of Oregon,			

	Respondent.

(SC S46841; S46843)
			

(Cases consolidated for argument and opinion)

	En Banc

	On petition to review ballot title.

	Argued and submitted November 9, 1999.

	James N. Gardner, of Gardner & Gardner, P.C., Portland,
argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners Brian J.
Delashmutt, Scott Gallant, and Gary F. Oxley.

	Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause and filed the
petition for petitioner Linda C. Love.

	Philip Schradle, Chief Civil Assistant Attorney General,
Salem, argued the cause for respondent.  With him on the
responses were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D.
Reynolds, Solicitor General.

	GILLETTE, J.

	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

		GILLETTE, J.

		These are two consolidated proceedings brought under
ORS 250.085(2) to review the ballot title for a measure referred
to the people by the 1999 Legislative Assembly.  The referred
measure, House Joint Resolution 2, would add a new section 34 to
Article IV of the Oregon Constitution.  The new section would
provide:

		"Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Constitution, the Legislative Assembly by law may
impose limitations on the damages that may be recovered
in civil actions."

		Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written
comments concerning the content of the Attorney General's draft
ballot title and who therefore are entitled to seek review of the
ballot title certified by the Attorney General.  See ORS
250.085(2) (setting that requirement).  The Attorney General's
certified ballot title provides as follows:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ALLOWS LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT 
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote adds
constitutional provision allowing legislature to limit
recovery of damages in civil actions.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains
restrictions on legislature's authority to limit
recovery of damages in civil actions.

		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Under current
judicial interpretation of the Oregon Constitution,
there are restrictions on the legislature's authority
to limit recovery of damages in civil actions.  These
restrictions include a prohibition barring the
legislature from limiting recovery of noneconomic
damages in personal injury actions.  This measure
overrides those restrictions by adding a new
constitutional provision expressly allowing the
legislature to impose limits on damages that may be
recovered in civil actions."

		We address the arguments made by each petition
separately.  Petitioners DeLashmutt, Gallant, and Oxley challenge
only the "no" result statement and the summary of the Attorney
General's ballot title.  We have considered each of petitioners' 
arguments, but conclude that none establishes that the Attorney
General's certified ballot title fails to comply with the
standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(c) and
(d) (1997).(1)  Accordingly, we turn to the arguments advanced by
petitioner Love.

		Petitioner Love challenges only the summary of the
Attorney General's certified ballot title.  The summary must be
"a concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words
summarizing the measure and its major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d)
(1997).  Petitioner Love asserts that the Attorney General's
summary fails the foregoing test because it neither identifies
adequately the state of current law nor describes adequately the
breadth of the proposed measure.  

		Petitioner Love's first argument is premised on the 
idea (with which the Attorney General agrees) that the referred
measure is a legislative response to Lakin v. Senco Products,
Inc., 329 Or 62, 987 P2d 463 (1999).  In Lakin, this court
invalidated ORS 18.560(1), a statute that purported to place a
$500,000 "cap" on awards of noneconomic damages in personal
injury cases, on the ground that the statute impermissibly
interfered with the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial
by jury found in Article I, section 17, of the Oregon
Constitution.  We accept that premise.  From it, petitioner Love
asserts that the second sentence of the Attorney General's
summary should be modified by adding the words, "awarded by
juries," after "damages."  We agree with petitioner Love that
such an addition might make the sentence better, but we do not
view the absence of the phrase as making either the sentence or
the summary as a whole inadequate under the statutory standard.

		Petitioner Love next argues that the sweep of the
second sentence is too great, in that it appears to state that
the Oregon Constitution presently impedes the legislature's
ability to limit damage awards in any and all civil actions. 
That objection is well taken.  The sentence speaks of
constitutional "restrictions on the legislature's authority to
limit recovery of damages in civil actions" and is a statement of
apparent general applicability.  On several occasions, however,
this court has approved, against a variety of constitutional
challenges, legislative choices to limit damages in some kinds of
civil actions.  See, e.g., Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281, 906
P2d 789 (1995) (upholding limitation on damages in wrongful death
actions); Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 783 P2d 506
(1989) (upholding limitation on damages in tort claims against
public bodies).  We modify the sentence in question in the manner
set out below.(2)

		Finally, petitioner Love argues that the Attorney
General's summary fails to state adequately the breadth of the
referred measure.  The measure, Love argues, speaks without
limitation to "civil actions," thereby authorizing the
statutorily directed reduction (or even elimination) of damages
in any category of case that falls under that broad umbrella. 
Thus, Love reasons, the Attorney General's choice to include the
specific and limited discussion of "noneconomic damages in
personal injury actions" in the third sentence of the summary
narrowly and incorrectly focuses the reader's attention on the
result of the Lakin decision, rather than on the broader policy
choice embodied in the referred measure.

		Again, we agree.  The measure's unrestricted reference
to "civil actions" includes not merely personal injury actions,
but also contract actions, trespass actions, and economic tort
actions, among others.  The sentence in question should be
eliminated.  The summary also should be modified in other
respects to eliminate its overly narrow focus.  The following
summary (in which the omissions have been bracketed and the
additions have been highlighted) addresses the well-founded
objections made by petitioner Love:

		SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Under [current judicial
interpretation of] the Oregon Constitution, [there are
restrictions on] the right to jury trial restricts the
legislature's authority to limit recovery of some kinds of
damages in some civil actions.  This measure overrides that
restriction by adding a new constitutional provision
expressly allowing the legislature to impose limits on
damages that may be recovered in any civil action.

		Based on the foregoing discussion, we certify the
following ballot title for the referred measure to the Secretary
of State:

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ALLOWS LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT 

RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote adds
constitutional provision allowing legislature to limit
recovery of damages in civil actions.

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains
restrictions on legislature's authority to limit
recovery of damages in civil actions.

		SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Under the Oregon
Constitution, the right to jury trial restricts the
legislature's authority to limit recovery of some kinds
of damages in some civil actions.  This measure
overrides that restriction by adding a new
constitutional provision expressly allowing the
legislature to impose limits on damages that may be
recovered in any civil action.

		Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).	

1. 	The 1999 Legislature amended ORS 250.035(2) in several
ways.  Or Laws 1999, ch 793, § 1.  Those amendments do not affect
the petitions in the present case.

2. 	In modifying the sentence, we also have deleted the
phrase, "current judicial interpretation."  It is not a judicial
interpretation that is pertinent; it is the meaning of the Oregon
Constitution itself.