Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review concerned the extent to which a social host of a gathering at which alcohol is consumed is liable for injuries that occur during the party. The defendant hosted a party at which his guests drank alcohol. Two of the guests engaged in horseplay with loaded handguns, and one of the guests was killed. The personal representative of the decedent sued defendant, who asserted that, under ORS 471.565(2), he was not liable because he had not “served or provided” alcohol to the shooter “while” the shooter was “visibly intoxicated.” The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under ORS 471.545(2), a social host “serve[s] or provide[s]” alcohol when the host controls the alcohol supply, and in this case the evidence permitted an inference that defendant did that at a time when the shooter was visibly intoxicated. On review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed. View "Baker v. Croslin" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a tragic helicopter crash in a remote part of Peru, which resulted in the deaths of everyone on board. Plaintiffs brought wrongful death actions in Oregon against Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. (Evergreen - an Oregon corporation) that provided the helicopter and the pilot. Evergreen filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ actions on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that Peru was the appropriate forum in which to litigate those cases. The trial court consolidated the cases and granted Evergreen’s motions. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. Although it concluded that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was available in Oregon, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred as a matter of law because it made factual determinations that went to the underlying merits of plaintiffs’ claims and failed to assess the materiality of the documentary and testimonial evidence with respect to the different claims in the complaint. After review, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that forum non conveniens was part of the common law of Oregon and permitted a trial court to dismiss or stay an action under certain circumstances when justice required. The Court disagreed in some respects with the Court of Appeals as to the standards that governed the application of forum non conveniens, but agreed with its decision vacating the trial court judgments and remanding the cases back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue before the Oregon Supreme Court in this matter was ORS 471.565(2), which provided an independent statutory right of action against a social host who served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated guest, who in turn caused injuries to a third party. Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver of the other vehicle, Defendant Diana Bunch, and the social host who served that driver, defendant Jeffrey King. Plaintiff asserted two claims against the social host: (1) for common-law negligence; and (2,at issue in this appeal) statutory liability. In the common-law negligence claim, plaintiff alleged that King was negligent in serving alcohol to his visibly intoxicated guest at his home when it was reasonably foreseeable that she would drive her vehicle and cause injury to persons on the roadway. In his statutory liability claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant was statutorily liable for serving alcohol to the guest in violation of ORS 471.565(2) Defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss plaintiff’s statutory liability claim for failure to allege ultimate facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the case was tried solely on the common-law negligence claim, resulting in a jury verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed, arguing it was error to dismiss the statutory liability claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that in enacting ORS 471.565(2), the legislature intended to impose statutory liability on social hosts for serving visibly intoxicated guests. The appellate court also rejected defendant’s argument that any error in dismissing the statutory liability claim was rendered harmless by the jury instructions that the trial court gave. The Supreme Court concluded that ORS 471.565(2) does not provide a statutory liability claim against alcohol providers that exists independently from a claim for common-law negligence. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court. View "Deckard v. Bunch" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals certified two questions of Oregon law to the Oregon Supreme Court. This case arose when plaintiff, who was legally blind, was injured when she stepped into a hole while jogging in a public park in the City of Portland (the City). Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City and defendants Gibson and Stillson. Defendant Gibson had created the hole to fix a malfunctioning sprinkler head; he was a park technician with primary responsibility for maintenance of the park. Defendant Stillson was the maintenance supervisor for all westside parks in the City. As framed by the Ninth Circuit, the questions were: (1) whether individual employees responsible for repairing, maintaining, and operating improvements on City-owned recreational land made available to the public for recreational purposes are “owner[s]” of the land, as defined in the Oregon Public Use of Lands Act, and therefore immune from liability for their negligence; and (2) if such employees are “owner[s]” under the Act, whether the Act, as applied to them, violated the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the individual employees in this case did not qualify as “owner[s]” under the Act, and that the Court need not address the second certified question. View "Johnson v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that, after being served alcohol at defendant’s bar when he was visibly intoxicated, a patron, Mayfield, walked down the street to another business location and, without intending to do so, fired a gun through the doorway, causing injuries to plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion, concluding that plaintiffs had presented insufficient evidence to permit an inference that the type of harm that plaintiffs suffered was reasonably foreseeable to defendant when it served alcohol to Mayfield while he was visibly intoxicated. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the ensuing judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim against defendant. On review, the Supreme Court concluded plaintiffs’ evidence was not sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that the harm that plaintiffs suffered was a reasonably foreseeable risk of defendant’s conduct. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Chapman v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two individuals who purchased Marlboro Light cigarettes in Oregon. Defendant Philip Morris was the company that manufactured, marketed, and sold Marlboro Lights. Plaintiffs brought this action under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), alleging that defendant misrepresented that Marlboro Lights would deliver less tar and nicotine than regular Marlboros and that, as a result of that misrepresentation, plaintiffs suffered economic losses. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of approximately 100,000 individuals who had purchased at least one pack of Marlboro Lights in Oregon over a 30-year period (from 1971 to 2001). The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion after concluding that individual inquiries so predominated over common ones that a class action was not a superior means to adjudicate the putative class’s UTPA claim. On appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s predominance assessment, concluding that the essential elements of the UTPA claim could be proved through evidence common to the class. The majority remanded to the trial court to reconsider whether, without the trial court’s predominance assessment, a class action was a superior means of litigating the class claims. In granting defendant’s petition for review, the Supreme Court considered whether common issues predominated for purposes of the class action certification decision, and what a private plaintiff in a UTPA case of this nature had to prove. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly denied class certification, and accordingly, it reversed the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Jackson County (the county) sought reconsideration of the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion in "Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson," (346 P3d 468 (2015)) in which the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and trial court decisions denying the county’s common-law indemnity claim. The Court concluded that, “[i]n cases in which the Oregon comparative negligence statutes apply and in which jurors allocate fault -and thereby responsibility- for payment of damages between tortfeasors, and each tortfeasor’s liability is several only, a judicially created means of allocating fault and responsibility is not necessary or justified.” The Court allowed the request for reconsideration because the Court rested its conclusion on an analysis that the parties had not expressly identified. The county raised three points that it thought might affect the Court's analysis. The Supreme Court took the opportunity, in this opinion, to briefly address those points and explain why it adhered to its prior conclusion. View "Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson" on Justia Law

In 2009, claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. Claimant had preexisting multilevel degenerative disc disease and a history of intermittent low back pain with some bilateral radiation to his legs. SAIF, the employer's workers' compensation insurer, accepted a claim for a lumbar strain. Claimant subsequently sought acceptance of a combined condition, which SAIF ultimately denied on the ground that the accepted injury was no longer the major contributing cause of the combined condition. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld SAIF's denial, and claimant sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals. On appeal to that court, claimant contended that, in determining the compensability of his claim, the board erroneously had framed the inquiry in terms of whether the accepted condition continued to be the major contributing cause of his disability or need for treatment. In claimant's view, the proper inquiry was whether his accidental injury continued to be the major contributing cause of his combined condition. Claimant contended that there was no evidence that that injury was no longer the major contributing cause of his disability or need for treatment. While judicial review was pending before the Court of Appeals, claimant died of causes unrelated to his workplace injury, without a surviving spouse or other beneficiary entitled to a death benefit. The Court of Appeals held that claimant's estate, through his personal representative, was not authorized to pursue the claim to final determination under ORS 656.218(3) on the grounds that: (1) the estate was not one of the "persons" described in 656.218(5); and (2) the phrase "unpaid balance of the award" in the second sentence of subsection (5) restricted an estate's entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits that were awarded before a worker's death. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court: in the absence of persons who would have been entitled to receive death benefits if the injury causing a deceased worker's disability had been fatal, an award of permanent partial disability benefits that is finally determined after the worker's death pursuant to ORS 656.218(3) is payable to the worker's estate under ORS 656.218(5). The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sather v. SAIF" on Justia Law

In 2006, plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle on a private road that provided access to several pieces of property. On the upper part of the access road, a cable had been stretched across the road to prevent entrance to a quarry at the end of the access road. Plaintiff failed to see the cable in time to stop and was injured when his motorcycle hit the cable. Plaintiff brought this action for negligence against Rick and Sherry Matthews, doing business as Mountain View Rock, who had placed the cable across the access road where the road crossed onto their property. Plaintiff joined Re/Max Ideal Properties, Inc. (Re/Max), as a defendant in the action, on the theory that Re/Max, by advertising property along the access road as "for sale," was at least partly responsible for causing plaintiff to ride his motorcycle up the access road (since he had been interested in properties in the area served by the road). The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff was "100% responsible for his injuries and no reasonable juror could find otherwise." A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed on the alternative grounds that Mountain View, as a matter of law, did not breach any duty of care that it owed to plaintiff and that Re/Max, as a matter of law, could not be found by a reasonable jury to have caused plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court did not accept the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff was "100% responsible" for his injuries, and reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Mountain View; the Court affirmed as to Re/Max. View "Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought damages for damage to its real property. As an affirmative defense, Jefferson County, one of the defendants in this case, alleged that plaintiff was negligent and was itself responsible for the damages that it had suffered. The county also filed a cross-claim against a codefendant (the contractor) seeking common-law indemnity. Plaintiff’s negligence claim was tried to a jury, which found that plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault. Therefore, under ORS 31.600, neither the county nor the contractor were liable to plaintiff. Nevertheless, the county had incurred costs in defending against plaintiff’s claim, and it pursued its cross-claim for indemnity to collect those costs from the contractor. The trial court denied the county’s indemnity claim, the county appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. View "Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson" on Justia Law