Court Opinion

ID: 9793922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:55:16.225766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:57.415078
License: Public Domain

De MUNIZ, J.,
concurring.
I agree that this case should be affirmed. I write separately to address plaintiffs final assignment of error, because I do not conclude that our holding in Siegfried v. Pacific Northwest Development Corp., 102 Or App 57, 793 P2d 330 (1990), stands for a general rule as to reviewability of claims regarding negligence. There, the plaintiff assigned error to the admission of evidence that was relevant to damages. We held that, because the jury had found that the defendant was not negligent, it was unnecessary to reach the damages issue. Here, plaintiff assigns error, inter alia, to the trial court’s pretrial denial of its motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defense1 that plaintiffs own negligence in failing to install an adequate sprinkler system contributed to its injury. Plaintiffs position is that the affirmative defense, and *635the evidence based on it, were not relevant to plaintiffs professional negligence claim, which was based on defendant’s duty to use due care to provide insurance to plaintiff in the light of all the known risks. Plaintiff argues that defendant knew that plaintiff did not have a sprinkler system and that defendant’s duly included the risk of insuring against plaintiffs own negligence in not providing a sprinkler system. Therefore, plaintiffs fault could not reduce or defeat its claim that its insurance broker had not provided for adequate insurance.
If plaintiff is correct that the trial court erred in not striking the affirmative defense, then the jury heard evidence that might, indeed, have been prejudicial to plaintiff on the issue of defendant’s negligence. In that instance, I would hold that the issue of negligence was properly before us, irrespective of the jury’s special verdict finding that defendant was not negligent.
However, plaintiffs argument fails here because, as plaintiff concedes, the evidence was relevant on another issue —that the lack of a sprinkler system made it harder for defendant to obtain insurance for plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to avoid the consequences of the admissibility of that evidence by claiming that defendant’s evidence and arguments went far beyond that “narrow issue” and “pervaded the trial” to such an extent that it compromised the jury’s ability to be fair.
We rejected a similar argument in Siegfried v. Pacific Northwest Development Corp., supra, 102 Or App at 60:
“Plaintiff nevertheless contends that the asserted error was prejudicial, because everything is connected with everything else and the jury’s thinking on damages may have affected its finding on causation. We again disagree. The jury made special findings and plaintiff does not contend that the jury was improperly instructed on the questions that were presented to it.”
Likewise, plaintiff here did not request limiting instructions. Characterizing limiting instructions and special verdicts as a “weak remedial power” is not responsive to the fact that the evidence was admissible. Having failed to try to limit how the jury would consider the evidence, plaintiff cannot now complain that the evidence improperly influenced the jury’s determination.

 Plaintiff made six assignments of error relating to the affirmative defense. In addition to the trial court’s denial of plaintiff s motion to strike the defense, it assigns error to the denial of partial summary judgment on the defense, denial of a directed verdict on the defense, and denial of motions to exclude evidence that plaintiffs factory was not equipped with a fire suppression sprinkler system and evidence of the design of plaintiff’s factory.