Court Opinion

ID: 9551245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:49:57.262347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:23.207333
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I specially concur only to express my opinion that in discussing the issue of punitive damages we should adhere to the terminology selected in Noe v. Kaiser *162Foundation Hospital, 248 Or 420, 425, 435 P2d 306 (1967). “It is only in those instances where the violation of societal interests is sufficiently great and of a Mnd that sanctions would tend to prevent, that the use of punitive damages is proper.” Stating that punitive damages should not have been awarded because there was no evidence that the conduct was “intentional or activated by ill will or malice toward plaintiffs” is in my opinion reverting to a nomenclature which we found in the Noe case to be insufficient to describe our reasoning.
O’Connell, C. J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.