Court Opinion

ID: 9616022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:42:53.114183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:35.778146
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, J.,
dissenting.
The only justification for the impostion of punitive damages is to deter wrongful conduct in those circumstances where other legal sanctions are not available to effect deterrence.① Our air pollution statutes (OES 449.760 to 449.990) contain a variety of sanctions sufficient to provide adequate deterrence. We should not, therefore, apply the doctrine of punitive damages to the present case.
Perry, J., concurs in this opinion.

 “* * * Numerous possible theoretical foundations exist for the award of such damages, but by analysis and the process of elimination it has been argued that the only proper basis for exemplary damages is their function as deterrents of wrongful conduct where compensatory damages and criminal sanctions are inadequate to deter such conduct.” Hodel, The Doctrine of Exemplary Damages in Oregon, 44 Or L ¡Rev 175 at 240 (1965).