Tort Actions
Noneconomic damages
- award
- limit
- “economic damages” and “noneconomic damages” defined
(formerly 18.560)
Notes of Decisions
Economic damages awarded for pecuniary loss in wrongful death actions are not limited to objectively verifiable monetary losses. Ingram v. Acands, Inc., 977 F2d 1332 (1992)
Plaintiff need not present evidence of past employment or intent of future employment to collect damages for reduced earning capacity. Richmond v. Zimbrick Logging, Inc., 124 Or App 631, 863 P2d 520 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where personal injury was not essential element of claim, instruction that jury must find noneconomic damages before awarding economic damages was erroneous. Whitman-McCoy v. Dept. of Corrections, 132 Or App 45, 887 P2d 375 (1994)
Pleadings in negligence claim could include allegation of harm based on birth of healthy normal child. Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 871 P2d 1006 (1994)
Term "objectively verifiable monetary losses" does not impose proof requirement that monetary loss be objectively verified. DeVaux v. Presby, 136 Or App 456, 902 P2d 593 (1995)
Definition of "economic damages" as damages that are objectively verifiable does not require that jury be informed of tax consequences of award. Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 153 Or App 415, 959 P2d 89 (1998), modified 155 Or App 1, 963 P2d 729 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Amount of charges necessarily "incurred" for medical services is amount that party becomes liable or subject to at time party receives treatment, regardless of amounts provider subsequently writes off. White v. Jubitz Corp., 219 Or App 62, 182 P3d 215 (2008), aff'd 347 Or 212, 219 P3d 566 (2009)
Plaintiff's claims for work-related injury brought against third party defendant unaffiliated with plaintiff's employer are not subject to exception from statutory cap on noneconomic damages for workers' compensation claims. Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or App 503, 406 P3d 225 (2017), Sup Ct. review allowed
Cap on noneconomic damages, as applied to plaintiff's award for work-related injuries against third party manufacturer, was unconstitutional violation of remedy clause because damages cap had effect of reducing plaintiff's award from $6,199,090 to $1,839,090, which resulted in non-substantial award and did not take into account identifiable quid pro quo benefit for plaintiff. Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 288 Or App 503, 406 P3d 225 (2017), Sup Ct. review allowed
Application of noneconomic damages cap is unconstitutional when result is dramatic reduction of noneconomic damages for most grievously injured plaintiffs. Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 289 Or App 672, 410 P3d 336 (2018)
Law Review Citations
24 WLR 285 (1988); 26 WLR 198 (1989)