Court Opinion

ID: 9624228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:54:45.446543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:45.415064
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority in the disposition of the issue of timeliness of the appeal. Were I writing on a clean slate, however, I would hold otherwise. Absent the gloss of prior decisions of this court, the statute as written would preclude an extension of time for appeal in the manner accomplished in this case. I do not mean to say that I disagree with the majority that it is better to give the trial court an opportunity to make a ruling which may obviate the necessity of an appeal; however, that is not the statutory scheme provided in so many words.
I disagree with the majority in its holding that the judgment for punitive damages must be reversed.
The true issue is whether the Unlawful Trade Practices Act permits the trier of fact, in its sole discretion, to award punitive damages against one who violates the Act, regardless of whether a common law case for punitive damages has been established.
Plaintiff actually does make two contentions: (1) that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the common law standard for awarding punitive damages; and (2) the Unlawful Trade Practices Act permits an award of punitive damages for a violation of the Act regardless of the common law.
*492The majority compares the evidence in this case with that in Chamberlain v. Jim Fisher Motors, Inc., 282 Or 229, 578 P2d 1225 (1978) to dispose of the first contention. For that I cannot fault the opinion. On the other hand it should be noted that Chamberlain cannot be dispositive of the second contention, for that case was not decided under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
"We recognize that plaintiff’s complaint was based upon both ORS 481.310 et seq * * * and ORS 646.605 et seq * * *. As previously held, however, we have affirmed plaintiff’s right to recovery under ORS 481.310, rather than under ORS 646.605.” 282 Or at 240, 578 P2d at 1230.
I believe it to be unfortunate that the second contention (and the true issue in this case) is to be decided upon the record here. Had I been the trier of fact in this case, I would not have allowed punitive damages, and I find it difficult to understand why the jury made the award. I believe the majority has been influenced to some extent by the same puzzlement. "Hard cases make bad law.”
The Act provides that a person injured as a result of "wilful use or employment” of a prohibited practice may
"recover actual damages or $200, whichever is greater. The court or the jury, as the case may be, may award punitive damages * * ORS 646.638(1).
One wilfully violates the Act when he knows or should know that his conduct is a violation of the Act. ORS 646.605(9).
No one has advanced the argument that the legislature could not constitutionally provide for the recovery of punitive damages for injurious conduct which amounts actually to mere ordinary negligence. When ORS 646.638(1) and 646.605(9) are read together, it is apparent that liability under the Act may be predicated upon ordinary negligence, for one may be liable if he "should have known” that his conduct was a *493violation. The Act amounts to a declaration that even merely negligent conduct prohibited by the Act is considered by the legislature to be so anti-societal as to call for punitive damages to be assessed against the violator wherever the trier of fact, not the trier of law, considers that to be proper.
The majority disregards what must be considered to be that deliberate policy decision by the legislature by saying that the choice of the term "punitive damages” carries with it all its common law trappings of separation of the function of trier of law from that of trier of fact. The majority reasons that punitive damages are recoverable at common law only where there has been a particularly aggravated disregard of the rights of the victim, and the same test must be used to allow punitive damages for violation of the Act. The answer is that the legislature has found (whether or not the court would) that violation of the Act is particularly aggravated disregard of the rights of the victim as a member of the consuming public and that conduct prohibited by the Act is the kind that sanctions would tend to prevent. Compare the quotation by the majority from Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 248 Or 420, 425, 435 P2d 306 (1967).