Source: https://www.corsonjohnsonlaw.com/damages-caps-post-horton-where-are-we-now/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:53:54+00:00

Document:
Damage Caps Under Review in Oregon. What Does It Mean?
Damages Caps Post-Horton: Where Are We Now?
Two years ago, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a statutory cap on noneconomic damages in a case brought under the Oregon Tort Claims Act. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016). That decision has been characterized by some as eviscerating Oregon’s jury trial right under Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution (in its overruling Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 987 P.2d 463, clarified, 329 Or 369, 987 P2d 476 (1999)). Horton has been characterized by others as reinvigorating constitutional arguments brought under the remedy clause of Article I, section 10 (in its overruling Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 23 P3d 333 (2001)).
The Oregon Court of Appeals has applied that reinvigorated remedy clause analysis to conclude once again that the imposition of the ORS 31.710 statutory cap on noneconomic damages can be unconstitutional. Current law holds that the cap violates Article I, section 10 under the remedy clause analysis suggested in Horton. See Busch v. McInnis Waste Sys., Inc., 292 Or App 820 (2018) ($500,000 cap unconstitutional when applied to $10,500,000 jury assessment of noneconomic damages); Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 289 Or App 672,410 P3d 336 (2018) (cap unconstitutional with $759,375 of noneconomic damages for loss of consortium); Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or App 503,406 P3d 225 (2017) (cap unconstitutional with $4,860,000 of noneconomic damages).
The Purdy trial court agreed that current law compelled a finding that $500,000 would not be a “substantial” remedy in light of the jury’s $4,250,000 noneconomic damages assessment. In other words, ORS 31.710 did not pass constitutional muster under the recent appellate court decisions.
Because the Purdy case is now being appealed for a second time, we, like many attorneys representing individuals, are eager to learn the outcome of the Supreme Court’s pending review of Vasquez. Of interest is whether the Supreme Court will reach the constitutional issues or decide the case on other grounds.
Although the parties in Rains reached a settlement and that decision will not be further appealed, the defendants in Busch filed a petition for review that is currently pending.
If the Oregon Supreme Court allows review, might that produce a “final” determination that ORS 31.710 does or can indeed violate the remedy clause?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.