Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.

In determining whether the court should apply ORS 31.710(1), the court should consider “the nature of plaintiff’s injuries, the lack of any quid pro quo in ORS 31.710(1), and our conclusion [in Vasquez] that ‘the legislature’s reason for enacting the noneconomic damages cap . . . cannot bear the weight of the dramatic reduction in noneconomic damages that the statute requires for the most grievously injured plaintiffs,’ reducing plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages awards to $500,000 would leave them without a ‘substantial’ remedy as required by Article I, section 10.” Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or App 503, 406 P3d 225 (2017), rev allowed, 362 Or 665 (2018).

Plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment that reduced his noneconomic damages award by about thirteen million dollars, which was granted by a jury. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that Defendant was entitled to its motion for reduction pursuant to ORS 31.710(1). On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court violated the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 10, because the reduction of his award, for a grievous injury, would leave him without a “substantial remedy.” In response, Defendant argued that an award for noneconomic damages in any amount is sufficient to serve the “symbolic purpose” of noneconomic damages; therefore, a cap on the award should apply. In determining whether the court should apply ORS 31.710(1), the court should consider “the nature of plaintiff’s injuries, the lack of any quid pro quo in ORS 31.710(1), and our conclusion [in Vasquez] that ‘the legislature’s reason for enacting the noneconomic damages cap . . . cannot bear the weight of the dramatic reduction in noneconomic damages that the statute requires for the most grievously injured plaintiffs,’ reducing plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages awards to $500,000 would leave them without a ‘substantial’ remedy as required by Article I, section 10.” Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or App 503, 406 P3d 225 (2017), rev allowed, 362 Or 665 (2018). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s application of ORS 31.710(1) was unconstitutional because it was not authorized to determine an amount of noneconomic damages given the facts of the case. Reversed and remanded.