EUGENE, Ore. (Legal Newsline) – In a closely watched case, the Oregon Supreme Court has given plaintiffs in the state a boost by striking down the state’s cap on noneconomic damages.
A verdict of more than $10 million for pain and suffering was awarded to a man who was ran over by a garbage truck and lost his leg after a horrifying ordeal in which his leg was trapped under the truck and only attached to his body by a one-inch piece of skin.
The state’s cap on noneconomic damages reduced the award to $500,000, but appeals courts say that limit doesn’t fly.
“(T)he legislative history does not indicate that, when the legislature capped plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages at $500,000, it did so, again as the legislature did when it adopted the Oregon Tort Claims Act, with the goal of capping noneconomic damages at a sum capable of restoring the right that had been injured in many, if not all, instances, and would remain capable of doing so over time,” Chief Justice Martha Walters wrote July 9.
“If the legislature provided a counterbalance for plaintiff’s loss of his right to a remedy, it not apparent here.”
Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association filed amicus briefs in the case in favor of the cap, while the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association urged the court to strike it down.
Scott Busch was walking lawfully across a street in Portland when he was struck by a garbage truck. The court noted he was conscious while his leg was torn nearly all the way off. It was ultimately amputated.
A jury awarded $3 million in economic damages and $10.5 million in noneconomic – a figure that was cut by $10 million because of the cap.
Critics of these caps claim they violate a plaintiff’s right to a fair trial. Proponents say they eliminate massive verdicts based more on outrage than sound reasoning. Defendants in Busch’s case argued $500,000 is “substantial” enough and that the legislature’s intention to make verdicts more predictable made the cap constitutional.
“Under Horton, the legislature must act for a reason sufficient to counterbalance the substantive right that Article I, section 10, grants. That right assures that people who are injured in their person, property or reputation have a remedy for those injuries. Oregon law has long recognized and protected that substantive right,” the decision says.