Court Opinion

ID: 9632090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:02:47.368792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:08.584155
License: Public Domain

LUSK, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the decision and with the opinion, *385except the following statement quoted from Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 248 Or 420, 435 P2d 306, 308: “Punitive damages can only be justified on the theory of determent.” The only authority cited in support of that statement in the Noe case is an article in 44 Oregon Law Review 175. The author of the article in turn cites no decisions of this or any other court' and, on the contrary, recognizes the law of Oregon when he says: “The most frequently stated purposes of exemplary damages in Oregon are punishment of the defendant and deterrence of others from like conduct.” 44 Or L Rev at 182. The following decisions of this court are in accord with the statement just quoted: Kinzua Lbr. Co. v. Daggett et al, 203 Or 585, 591, 281 P2d 221; Van Lom v. Schneiderman, 187 Or 89, 107, 210 P2d 461, 11 ALR2d 1195; Martin v. Cambas, 134 Or 257, 261, 293 P 601. This is the rule throughout the country. Thus, it is said in 22 Am Jur 2d 323, Damages § 237: “In most jurisdictions exemplary damages are allowed and awarded as a punishment to the defendant and as a warning and example to deter him and others from committing like offenses in the future.” To the foregoing are cited decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the lower Federal courts and 21 state courts, including Van Lom v. Schneiderman, supra. The recognized textwriters tell us the same thing: 1 Sedgwick on Damages, § 347 ; 2 Sutherland on Damages (4th ed) § 391; McCormick on Damages 275, § 77.