Court Opinion

ID: 9629148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:38:04.279679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:16.033229
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
I concur in that part of Mr. Justice O’Connell’s dissenting opinion stating that pretrial and post-trial loss of earnings should be treated uniformly.
I was prepared to concur in the majority opinion for the reasons stated therein, i.e., the distinctions are not logical, but this is a long accepted practice and has not resulted in an injustice. Upon further reflection, I am of the opinion that the majority opinion has announced two new rules of law and if we are going to make new law we should do so along the logical lines suggested in Mr. Justice O’Connell’s opinion.
The first new principle decided by the majority is that special damages for loss of earnings can only be recovered if the plaintiff was working at the time of *394injury: We have never so held Dicta in Fields v. Fields, 213 Or 522, 307 P2d 528, 326 P2d 451 (1958), is cited by the majority as supporting such a holding. Fields v. Fields, supra (213 Or at 537), merely, states that loss of earnings “ordinarily may be ascertained with reasonable certainty.” . Even if the logic of this statement leads to the conclusion' that to recover' special damages for loss of earnings one must be employed upon the date of injury, this Would' not compel the majority holding. The majority states that accepted past practice, not logic, is the basis of its decision.
The other new principle in the majority opinion is the inference that an unemployed plaintiff may recover for wages lost between injury and trial as an item of general damages,- — -impairment of earning capacity. I do not disagree with this idea; however, we have' not previously so held. Dicta in prior decisions indicate to the contrary. • That dicta is to the effect that impairment of earning capacity looks to the future,, after the trial; it is prospective. Fields v. Fields, supra (213 Or at 537); Shaw v. Pacific Supply Coop., 166 Or 508, 113 P2d 627 (1941). This same characterization is made in Oregon Jury Instructions for Civil Cases numbered 30.02.