Opinion ID: 1127452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ors 18.560(1): constitutional arguments

Text: Plaintiff argues that the trial court's application of ORS 18.560(1) to limit the jury award of noneconomic damages to $500,000 violates both the state and federal constitutions. In particular, plaintiff asserts that application of the statutory limit violates Article I, sections 10, 17, and 20, and Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, [6] and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [7] Defendants respond that ORS 18.560(1) violates neither the state nor the federal constitution. This court considers state constitutional claims before considering federal constitutional claims. Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or. 611, 614, 625 P.2d 123 (1981). Accordingly, we next decide whether the application of ORS 18.560(1) in this case violates the cited provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, provides in part that every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him. Plaintiff argues that she has suffered injuries in this case, which ORS 30.020 establishes as legally cognizable. She reasons that application of ORS 18.560(1) to her claim violates Article I, section 10, because that statute wholly denies a remedy for legitimate losses which exceed $500,000, and it fails to offer alternative remedies. Decisions from this court discussing Article I, section 10, dispose of plaintiff's argument. In Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or. 508, 517-524, 783 P.2d 506 (1989), this court addressed whether certain limits on damages contained in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, violated Article I, section 10. The court held that they did not. 308 Or. at 523-24, 783 P.2d 506. In reaching that conclusion, the court discussed the development of Article I, section 10, jurisprudence in this court, id. at 519-23, 783 P.2d 506, summarizing prior cases as follows: [Prior cases from this court] held only that Article I, section 10, is not violated when the legislature alters (or even abolishes) a cause of action, so long as the party injured is not left entirely without a remedy. Under those cases, the remedy need not be precisely of the same type or extent; it is enough that the remedy is a substantial one. Id. at 523, 783 P.2d 506 (citations omitted). See also Neher v. Chartier, 319 Or. 417, 424, 879 P.2d 156 (1994) (quoting that passage with approval). Accordingly, the legislature is entitled to amend the amount of damages available in a statutory wrongful death action without running afoul of Article I, section 10, as long as the plaintiff is not left without a substantial remedy. Plaintiff brought this action under ORS 30.020. That statute entitles plaintiff to damages in an amount that includes reasonable medical, burial, and memorial services rendered for the decedent, ORS 30.020(2)(a), and would justly, fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiff for pecuniary loss to the decedent's estate and loss of the society, companionship, and services of the decedent, ORS 30.020(2)(c) & (d). The jury awarded $100,000 in economic damages, which are objectively verifiable monetary losses, including expenses for medical, burial, and memorial services and loss to an estate (including loss of services to an estate). ORS 18.560(2)(a). The jury also awarded $1.5 million in noneconomic damages, which are subjective, nonmonetary losses, including loss of society and companionship. ORS 18.560(2)(b). Applying ORS 18.560(1), the trial court gave plaintiff judgment for noneconomic damages of $500,000, in addition to the $100,000 in economic damages, for a total of $600,000. Plaintiff has not been left without a remedy. She has received $600,000, comprised of $500,000 in noneconomic damages and $100,000 in economic damages. There was no statutory limit on the latter category of damages. Although that remedy is not precisely of the same extent as that to which plaintiff was entitled before the enactment of ORS 18.560(1), that remedy is substantial. See Hale, 308 Or. at 517-24, 783 P.2d 506 (upholding, under Article I, section 10, a $100,000 limitation on liability of each public body under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, despite the plaintiff's economic damages of more than $600,000). The remedy for wrongful death is substantial, not only because 100 percent of economic damages plus up to $500,000 in noneconomic damages is a substantial amount, but also because the statutory wrongful death action in Oregon has had a low limit on recovery for 113 years of its 133-year history. See 322 Or. at 294, 906 P.2d at 796, below (discussing history of wrongful death action in Oregon). As noted there, the wrongful death claim came into existence with a limitation, and the highest previous limitation (1961-1967) was $25,000. In relation to that history, the present remedy is substantial. Plaintiff's Article I, section 10, argument is not well taken.
Plaintiff also argues that the limitation on noneconomic damages in ORS 18.560(1), as applied to this wrongful death claim, violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiff reasons that, in some cases [application of that statute will] prohibit the judge from entering the award the jury deemed appropriate in that particular case.  (Emphasis in original). In other words, persons awarded more than $500,000 in noneconomic damages are subject to the statutory limit in ORS 18.560(1), while persons who are awarded noneconomic damages of $500,000 or less receive full compensation for their injuries. Thus, plaintiff argues, ORS 18.560(1) discriminates against the class of persons who, in the absence of the statute, would receive noneconomic damages in excess of $500,000. In Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387, 397, 788 P.2d 435, cert. den. 498 U.S. 819, 111 S.Ct. 65, 112 L.Ed.2d 39 (1990), this court said: In evaluating whether a class exists under Article I, section 20, we must first determine whether the class is created by the challenged law itself or by virtue of characteristics    apart from the law in question. Classes of the first type are entitled to no special protection and, in fact, are not even considered to be classes for the purposes of Article I, section 20. (Internal quotation marks omitted; citations omitted; ellipses in original.) The classes to which plaintiff's argument refers clearly are classes created by the challenged law itself. ORS 18.560(1) divides plaintiffs into classes based on the amount that happens to be awarded after trial. [S]uch a decision is within the purview of the legislature. Sealey, 309 Or. at 397, 788 P.2d 435. Plaintiff's Article I, section 20, argument is not well taken.
Next, plaintiff argues that the application of ORS 18.560(1) to this wrongful death action violates her right to a jury trial as provided in Article I, section 17, and Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiff argues that the right to a jury trial means that the jury decides the facts (including the amount of damages to be awarded) and that the jury's unmodified determination of damages is given effect: Reducing a verdict after a jury has determined that the evidence supports an award in a specified amount is an invasion of the jury's sole responsibility and is prohibited by [Article I, section 17, of] the constitution. Moreover, according to plaintiff, Article VII (Amended), section 3, makes it explicit that overriding the jury's damage award if it is supported by the evidence is also impermissible. Article I, section 17, guarantees a jury trial in civil actions. Article I, section 17, was part of the Bill of Rights of the Oregon Constitution, which was adopted in 1857. Article VII (Amended), section 3, guarantees that, after a jury trial, no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this state, unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict. Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, was adopted by the voters of Oregon by initiative petition in 1910.
The right to trial by jury in Article I, section 17, does not give plaintiff a right to a jury trial in all civil matters.    [A] jury trial is guaranteed only in those classes of cases in which the right was customary at the time the constitution was adopted or in cases of like nature. We must, therefore, decide whether plaintiff had a well-established right to have a jury determine the amount of damages in an action [for wrongful death] when our constitution was adopted. Molodyh v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 304 Or. 290, 295-96, 744 P.2d 992 (1987) (emphasis in original; citations omitted; footnote omitted). [8] See also Deane v. Willamette Bridge Co., 22 Or. 167, 169-77, 29 P. 440 (1892) (the plaintiff had no right under Article I, section 17, to a jury determination of damages in a default proceeding, because common law did not afford a right to jury trial in a default proceeding). In Oregon, as plaintiff acknowledges, the right of action for wrongful death is statutory. [A]t common law no remedy by way of a civil action for wrongful death existed. Richard v. Slate, 239 Or. 164, 167, 396 P.2d 900 (1964). In Goheen v. General Motors Corp., 263 Or. 145, 153-54, 502 P.2d 223 (1972), this court traced the history and development of wrongful death actions in Oregon and stated: The original Oregon Wrongful Death Act was included in the original Deady Code in 1862.    [It] did not specifically limit awards of damages to any named dependents. Neither did it specifically limit damages to pecuniary loss, although total recovery was limited to $5,000. This limitation on the amount of recovery was increased from time to time, and was finally removed [by Oregon Laws 1967, chapter 554, section 1]. (Footnotes omitted.) There was no wrongful death statute in Oregon before the 1862 Deady Code. Ibid. Therefore, at the time Article I, section 17, was adopted, no right existed for a trial by jury for a wrongful death action. Because wrongful death actions are purely statutory, they exist only in the form and with the limitations chosen by the legislature. Hughes v. White, 289 Or. 13, 18, 609 P.2d 365 (1980). Plaintiff argues, however, that the right to a jury trial is not strictly limited to cases in which it existed in 1859, when [Article I, section 17,] became effective, because the right extends to cases `of like nature' to those that existed at common law at the time the constitution was adopted. Plaintiff argues that, in 1857, a right to jury trial existed for personal injury actions; that a wrongful death action is of like nature to a personal injury action; and, thus, that the right to a jury trial attaches here. Even accepting the premise that a wrongful death action is of like nature to a personal injury action, plaintiff's argument would not prevail. When Article I, section 17, and the constitution were adopted, a jury's determination of the amount of damages to be awarded in tort actions was not protected from judicial alteration. Before the adoption of Article VII (Amended), section 3, in 1910, Oregon trial courts were empowered to exercise their discretion and set aside jury verdicts and grant a new trials for excessive damages found by a jury, or to order a remittitur of the excess as a condition to denying a motion for a new trial. See, e.g., General Laws of Oregon, ch. 2, § 232(5), p. 197 (Deady 1845-1864) (court could set aside jury's verdict because of [e]xcessive damages    given under the influence of passion or prejudice); Adcock v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or. 173, 181, 77 P. 78 (1904) (Where the damages assessed are excessive, in the opinion of the trial court, or not justified by the evidence, the error may in many cases be obviated by remitting the excess.); Sorenson v. Oregon Power Co., 47 Or. 24, 33, 82 P. 10 (1905) (approving trial court's exercise of remittitur). See also Hall S. Lusk, Forty-Five Years of Article VII, Section 3, Constitution of Oregon, 35 Or.L.Rev. 1, 4 (1955) (stating that, before adoption of Article VII (Amended), section 3, trial courts were empowered to set aside verdicts that they believed to be excessive). Article VII (Amended), section 3, and subsequent decisions by this court, did away with that practice. In order to inhibit such practice and to uphold verdicts, the Constitution was amended so as to preclude a court from re-examining any fact that had been tried by a jury, when the verdict returned was based on any legal evidence. Buchanan v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 66 Or. 503, 510, 133 P. 780, 134 P. 1191 (1913). Until the adoption of Article VII (Amended), section 3, in 1910, trial courts were empowered to reduce jury awards of damages when the courts believed that those awards were excessive. That fact, in itself, disposes of plaintiff's argument that there existed at common law, at the time Article I, section 17, was adopted in 1857, a right to have a judge enter judgment on a jury's award of damages without judicial alterationin a personal injury action. Plaintiff's Article I, section 17, argument is not well taken.
As noted above, the right of action for wrongful death in Oregon is wholly statutory, and the legislature is entitled to impose boundaries on statutory actions. 322 Or. at 292, 906 P.2d at 795-796. Indeed, for most of its existence, the statutory right of action for wrongful death has contained a limitation on the amount that a plaintiff could recover. In it original form, the Oregon Wrongful Death Act limited a plaintiff's total recovery to $5,000. The legislature increased that limitation on the amount of recovery from time to time; in 1961, the legislature raised the limit for the fifth time, to $25,000. See Goheen, 263 Or. at 154 nn. 15-17, 502 P.2d 223 (tracing statutory changes). In 1967, the legislature removed any limitation. Or.Laws 1967, ch. 544, § 1. As pertinent here, by enacting ORS 18.560(1) in 1987, [9] the legislature in essence ended a 20-year hiatus in limitations on the amount of recovery in wrongful death actions. With respect to a wrongful death action, ORS 18.560(1) has the effect of reinstating a ceiling on that legislatively created remedy. The dispositive question is whether Article VII (Amended), section 3, prevented the legislature from so defining wrongful death claims. We interpret a provision of the Oregon Constitution by examining [i]ts specific wording, the case law surrounding it, and the historical circumstances that led to its creation. Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or. 411, 415-16, 840 P.2d 65 (1992). Nothing in the wording of Article VII (Amended), section 3, quoted above at note 6, restricts the legislature's authority to set a substantive limitation on a purely statutory remedy. The wording of Article VII (Amended), section 3, addresses only the power of courts to re-examine[ ] facts tried by a jury. The case law surrounding Article VII (Amended), section 3, leads to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Buchannan, 66 Or. at 510, 133 P. 780, 134 P. 1191 (describing effect of that amendment). Finally, there is no suggestion in the circumstances that led to the creation of Article VII (Amended), section 3, that that provision was intended to restrict the legislature's authority to set a substantive limitation on a purely statutory remedy. Rather, the purpose of Article VII (Amended), section 3, was to bring about an improved administration of justice by reducing retrials to a minimum and so eliminating delay and expense. Lusk, 35 Or.L.Rev. at 3. See also Thomas H. Tongue, In Defense of Juries As Exclusive Judges of the Facts, 35 Or.L.Rev. 143 (1956) (agreeing with Justice Lusk's assessment of the purpose of Article VII (Amended), section 3); Pamphlet Containing Measures to be Submitted to Voters of Oregon, November 8, 1910, at 176-77 (The purpose of this amendment is to    remove the pretext for new trials in those cases in which substantial justice is done by the verdict and judgment, but in which the trial court may have made a technical mistake.). The right of action for wrongful death was created by the legislature in 1862, and it was created with a limitation on the amount recoverable. When the voters adopted Article VII (Amended), section 3, in 1910, the maximum amount recoverable in a statutory wrongful death action was $7,500. Lord's Oregon Laws, ch. VI, § 380, p. 326 (1910). Although voters told the courts not to re-examine facts tried by a jury, Art. VII (Amended), § 3, there is no indication in wording, case law, or history that the voters meant to undo the extant dollar limit on wrongful death actions. The removal, in 1967, of any limitation on the amount recoverable in a wrongful death action did not place the issue of dollar limits beyond the legislature's power to act, nor clothe the legislature's creation with constitutional guarantees not present at its inception. In summary, after examining the wording of Article VII (Amended), section 3, the case law surrounding it, and the historical circumstances that led to its creation, we have found no suggestion that Article VII (Amended), section 3, restricts the legislature's authority to set a maximum recovery in statutory wrongful death actions. Its authority in that regard is not diminished by the fact that the maximum recovery is set in a general statute that applies to wrongful death actions, rather than in the wrongful death statute itself. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that application of ORS 18.560(1) to plaintiff's wrongful death action violated Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court correctly held that ORS 18.560(1) does not violate the Oregon Constitution as applied in this case.
Because plaintiff's statutory and state constitutional claims are not well taken, we address her federal constitutional claims. Plaintiff argues that application of ORS 18.560(1) violates her rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff argues that application of ORS 18.560(1) to this wrongful death claim violates her right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff argues that ORS 18.560(1) deprives her of an important property interest (her right to collect damages), without furthering a substantial state interest. In Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a substantive due process challenge to a federal statute that imposed a limitation on liability for nuclear accidents resulting from the operation of federally licensed private nuclear power plants. The Court stated: The liability-limitation provision    emerges as a classic example of an economic regulationa legislative effort to structure and accommodate the burdens and benefits of economic life. It is by now well established that [such] legislative Acts. . . come to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. That the accommodation struck may have profound and far-reaching consequences, contrary to appellees' suggestion, provides all the more reason for this Court to defer to the [legislative] judgment unless it is demonstrably arbitrary or irrational. 438 U.S. at 83-84, 98 S.Ct. at 2638 (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted; footnote omitted). The Oregon legislature did not act in a demonstrably arbitrary or irrational way when it enacted ORS 18.560(1). ORS 18.560 was adopted by the legislature in 1987, as part of Senate Bill 323. Or.Laws, 1987, ch. 774, § 6. The legislative history of that provision shows that the purpose of the limitation on noneconomic damages, found in ORS 18.560(1), was to reduce the costs of insurance premiums and litigation. See, e.g., Tape recording, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee # 1, SB 323, April 29, 1987, Tape 466 at 133-200 (statements of Richard Egan, City-County Insurance Trust, and Representative Dave Dix) (discussing purposes and effects of statutory limits on damages awards); Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, SB 323, February 3, 1987, Ex A at 12 (testimony of John H. Holmes for Citizens' Initiative for Equity in the Legal System) (A limit on noneconomic damages    will improve the justice system, make economic sense, result in the availability of more insurance, result in better insurance rates for the consumers, provide predictability in the reinsurance markets of the world, and result in a more reasonable cost to the public of all those goods and services that have been affected by the escalating costs in this area). [10] The legislature enacted ORS 18.560(1) in response to a perceived threat of rising insurance and other costs. There existed a rational basis for the legislature to enact ORS 18.560(1). Accordingly, application of ORS 18.560(1) to plaintiff's claim does not violate her rights to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff argues that application of ORS 18.560(1) to this wrongful death claim violates her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. She argues that the statute unreasonably disadvantages those who receive jury awards of noneconomic damages in excess of $500,000, as contrasted to those who receive awards of noneconomic damages equal to or less than $500,000. Her argument here is similar to her argument under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, discussed above. 322 Or. at 289-90, 906 P.2d at 794. The Supreme Court of the United States recently has stated that: unless a classification warrants some form of heightened review because it jeopardizes exercise of a fundamental right or categorizes on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic, the Equal Protection Clause requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 2331, 120 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 (1992). ORS 18.560(1) does not categorize plaintiff on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic, such as race, sex, or alienage. And, as we have discussed above, ORS 18.560(1) does not jeopardize the exercise of a recognized fundamental right in this case, because the right to collect damages for wrongful death is a statutory right only, which has incorporated a dollar limit on recovery for most of its existence. We also concluded above that there existed a rational basis for the legislature to impose the statutory limit. For the foregoing reasons, application of ORS 18.560(1) to plaintiff's wrongful death action does not violate the Equal Protection Clause to the United States Constitution.