Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.

The legislature must act in a sufficient reason to counterbalance Art. 1, § 10’s substantive right that a person injured has a right to remedy those injuries. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016).

Defendant appealed a judgment from the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s decision to place a cap on jury-determined damages for non-economic damages. On appeal, Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s limited award constituted a substantial amount, and therefore was constitutional. Defendant argued that (1) a full award of economic damages plus $500,000 in non-economic damages constituted a substantial remedy for breaches in common-law duty; (2) a full award in economic damages alongside reduced non-economic damages because of the nature and purpose of non-economic damages, is substantial by necessity; and, (3) that based on the overall statutory scheme and policy reasons set by the legislature, ORS 31.710 provided a substantial remedy. In response, Plaintiff argued that a legislature’s limitation of a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages without either providing a substantial remedy or changing the defendant’s duty of care was unconstitutional under Art. 1, § 10 of the Oregon Constitution. The legislature must act in a sufficient reason to counterbalance Art. 1, § 10’s substantive right that a person injured has a right to remedy those injuries. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016). The Court found that ORS 31.710(1)’s damages cap took away an injured plaintiff’s right to recover damages for breach of duty, but kept a defendant’s common-law duty of care. Thus, the Court held that a limit on plaintiff’s noneconomic damages under ORS 31.710(1) violates Art. 1, § 10. Affirmed.