Opinion ID: 3207079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smothers

Text: In Smothers, the court stated that our cases interpreting the remedy clause have not been consistent, and it sought to provide a definitive interpretation of that clause. 332 Or at 90. Using the methodology set out in Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or 411, 415-16, 840 P2d 65 (1992), the court considered the text of Article I, section 10, its history, and our cases interpreting the remedy clause. Smothers, 332 Or at 91-123. After surveying Magna Carta, Coke’s Second Institute, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and decisions from other states interpreting their remedy clauses, Smothers concluded that the historical purpose of the remedy clause was “to mandate the availability of a remedy by due course of law for injury to absolute rights respecting person, property, and reputation.” Id. at 114. Smothers explained that, to give effect to that purpose, Oregon courts should ask two questions. The first is “whether the plaintiff has alleged an injury to one of the absolute rights that Article I, section 10 protects.” Id. at 124. 176 Horton v. OHSU Because Smothers concluded that an “injury,” as that term is used in the remedy clause, is a “wrong or harm for which a cause of action existed when the drafters wrote the Oregon Constitution in 1857,” it restated the first question as follows: “[W]hen the drafters wrote the Oregon Constitution in 1857, did the common law of Oregon recognize a cause of action for the alleged injury?” Id. Smothers stated that, if the answer to that question is “yes,” then the remedy clause mandates that a constitutionally adequate remedy for that injury be available. Id. The court observed that “[a] common-law cause of action is a constitutionally adequate remedy for seeking redress for injury to protected rights.” Id. Smothers also recognized, however, that the remedy clause “does not freeze in place common-law causes of action that existed when the drafters wrote the Oregon Constitution in 1857.” Id. The legislature may modify or abolish a common-law remedy “so long as it provides a substitute remedial process” for injuries to “absolute rights that the remedy clause protects.” Id. Because the legislature may provide a substitute remedial process for common-law injuries to absolute rights, the court formulated a second question to implement the remedy clause: If the legislature has abolished a common-law cause of action for protected injuries, has the legislature “provided a constitutionally adequate substitute remedy for the common-law cause of action for that injury?” Id. Applying that framework to the claim in Smothers, the court explained that, in 1857, the plaintiff in Smothers would have had a cause of action against his employer for negligently exposing him to dangerous fumes that were “a contributing cause” of his injuries. Id. at 129-33. The legislature, however, made workers’ compensation the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, and it required that the plaintiff prove that his employer’s negligence was “the major contributing cause” of his injury to recover under workers’ compensation. Id. at 133. Because the plaintiff could not make that showing, Smothers held that the workers’ compensation statute, as applied, violated the remedy clause; that is, the workers’ compensation statute violated the remedy clause because it denied the plaintiff any remedy for an injury—bodily harm Cite as 359 Or 168 (2016) 177 for which the defendant’s negligence was a contributing cause—that would have been actionable under the common law of Oregon in 1857. Id. at 133-36. Smothers did not reach the question of when a mod- ified remedy for an injury that was actionable in 1857 will be “constitutionally adequate.” Id. at 120 n 19. The court explained: “[T]he only question in this case is whether the legislature has deprived plaintiff of a means for seeking redress for the injury [that was recognized at common law in 1857 and] that he alleges that he suffered at work. Accordingly, it is beyond the scope of this opinion to address issues relating to the adequacy of the amount of damages that may be available under a legislatively substituted process for a common-law cause of action for injury to one of the rights that is protected by the remedy clause.” Id. (emphasis in original). The court noted that other cases had stated that a remedy will be constitutionally adequate if it is “substantial.” Id. For instance, in Hale, this court concluded that, in determining the adequacy of a remedy, “the remedy need not be precisely of the same type or extent; it is enough that the remedy is a substantial one.” Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 523, 783 P2d 506 (1989). See also Neher v. Chartier, 319 Or 417, 426, 879 P2d 156 (1994) (citing rule from Hale); Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281, 291, 906 P2d 789 (1995) (same). As we read Smothers, it tied the meaning of the remedy clause to Oregon common law in 1857 in two ways. First, if the common law of Oregon provided a cause of action for an injury to person, property, or reputation in 1857, then the law must continue to provide some remedy for that historically defined injury. Not only did Smothers say so explicitly, but it held the workers’ compensation statute unconstitutional, as applied, because an actionable injury under that statute (bodily harm for which the employer’s negligence was the major contributing cause) was different from and narrower than the injury for which a cause of action existed in 1857 (bodily harm for which the employer’s negligence was a contributing cause). See Smothers, 332 Or at 124, 178 Horton v. OHSU 133-36. Second, in determining whether the law provides a constitutionally adequate remedy, the court looked to the common law in 1857 as a model. It noted that common-law remedies for historically defined injuries would be constitutionally adequate but that the remedy clause does not prevent the legislature from modifying a remedy for those injuries as long as the remedy remains a substantial one. Id. at 124. We accordingly disagree with plaintiff that Smothers did not tie the remedy clause to the common law as it existed in 1857. We also disagree with plaintiff that the court departed from Smothers in Howell and Lawson by looking to the common law in 1857 to determine whether the plaintiffs in those cases had suffered a constitutionally protected injury and whether, if they had, the legislature had provided a constitutionally adequate remedy. We agree, however, with both plaintiff and defendant that tying the remedy clause to the common law in 1857 can produce (and has produced) anomalous results. As others have noted, the common law often turned on a patchwork of confusing and unworkable distinctions. See Edwin M. Borchard, Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale LJ 229, 233 (1925) (discussing confusion engendered by common-law distinctions). The standard that Smothers announced gives constitutional effect to those common-law anomalies. Moreover, as the dissent recognized in Howell and the majority did not dispute, strict adherence to Smothers can result in the further anomaly of trying two claims to a jury—one under the current law and the other under the law as it existed in 1857. Finally, defendant has raised substantial questions regarding Smothers’ interpretation of the sources on which it relied. In those circumstances, we conclude that it is appropriate to consider whether Smothers was correctly decided by reexamining the text of Article I, section 10, its history, and our cases. See State v. Reinke, 354 Or 98, 105, 309 P3d 1059, adh’d to as modified on recons, 354 Or 570, 316 P3d 286 (2013) (undertaking similar reexamination). In doing so, we focus initially (and solely) on Smothers’ holding that Oregon common law in 1857 defines the injuries for which the law must provide a remedy. Because we overrule Cite as 359 Or 168 (2016) 179 Smothers, we also consider the related issue that defendant raises—whether our other remedy clause cases should be overruled as well.