Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a plaintiff was required to present expert testimony from a medical doctor to establish the standard of care and breach of the standard of care. Plaintiff presented expert testimony from a biomechanical engineer familiar with use of the medical device installed on plaintiff's cervical spine by defendant, a neurosurgeon. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence from her expert witness who was not a medical doctor to present a jury question on at least one aspect of her negligence claim. View "Trees v. Ordonez" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was what constituted a "proof of loss" in a claim for UIM benefits and what sufficed to trigger the safe harbor provision. The insured provided notice of an injury automobile accident to her insurer, but did not submit a UIM benefits claim at that time. Nearly two years later, the insurer learned of the possible UIM claim. The insurer agreed in writing that it accepted coverage, that the only remaining issues were liability and damages, and that it was willing to submit to binding arbitration. After recovering on her UIM claim, the insured asked for attorney fees. The insurer claimed the benefit of the safe harbor provision of ORS 19 742.061(3). The Court of Appeals concluded that the insurer did not send its safe harbor letter within six months of the insured's "proof of loss." According to the Court of Appeals, the "proof of loss" was the initial report of injury two years earlier. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the initial report of injury did not provide sufficient information to constitute a proof of loss for a UIM claim and that the insurer's safe harbor letter was sufficient to trigger the statutory exception to an attorney fee award. View "Zimmerman v. Allstate Property and Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action to recover for injuries that their son sustained during delivery. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether ORCP 59 H limits an appellate court's ability to review objections to a trial court's instructional rulings and whether a statutory cap on noneconomic damages constitutionally can be applied to actions brought by children injured during birth. The Court of Appeals held that, because defendant had not excepted to the trial court's rulings as ORCP 59 H requires, it could not seek appellate review of those rulings. On appeal and again on review, the parties debated whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury and whether applying a statutory cap to the jury's damages award would violate the Oregon Constitution. The jury returned a general verdict finding that defendant was "negligent in one or more ways alleged by plaintiffs" and, awarded plaintiffs economic damages and noneconomic damages. On appeal, defendant argued that both rulings were incorrect because the informed consent statute had no application to a vaginal delivery. The Supreme Court concluded that because an action for medical malpractice was one for which "the right to jury trial was customary in 1857," Article I, section 17, prohibited the legislature from limiting the jury's determination of noneconomic damages. Having reached that conclusion, the Court did not address plaintiffs' other arguments on constitutional grounds. View "Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged she was injured after she walked down the aisle of defendant's store and a heavy item fell on her foot. She did not see the item fall, nevertheless, plaintiff contended the store was negligent because the item would not have fallen had it been properly shelved. The trial court entered summary judgment in the store's favor, concluding plaintiff produced no evidence that defendant knew or should have known of any danger in the shelving of the product. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hagler v. Coastal Farm Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of Oregon law to the Oregon Supreme Court. They arose from an action for personal injury brought in federal district court against defendant Christopher Boyle and his employer, the City of Beaverton, for injuries that plaintiff Jean Howell suffered in an automobile collision with a police car that defendant Boyle drove. A jury found that plaintiff and Boyle were equally at fault and that plaintiff's damages totaled approximately $1 million. The trial court reduced the award by half, in accordance with the jury's findings of comparative fault. Defendants then moved to reduce the award further, to the $200,000 limit of the then-current Oregon Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the application of the statutory limitation would have violated the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. Defendants appealed, and the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions: (1) is plaintiff's negligence action constitutionally protected under the Oregon Constitution's remedy clause irrespective of the jury's finding of comparative negligence?; and (2) if plaintiff's action is protected, is $200,000 an unconstitutional emasculated remedy despite the jury's finding of comparative negligence? The Oregon Supreme Court addressed the second question only, because its answer was dispositive: "[e]ven assuming for the sake of argument that, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff's negligence action is constitutionally protected by Article I, section 10, the $200,000 limitation on her recovery is constitutionally permissible. Under this court's case law, the constitution requires that any remedy that remains after the imposition of a modern limitation on it be 'substantial.' In this case, the $200,000 judgment that plaintiff received satisfies that constitutional requirement." View "Howell v. Boyle" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, defendant Alex Kalugin moved for a defense medical examination pursuant to ORCP 44 A. Plaintiff Paul Lindell, Jr. objected on the ground that he would not submit to such an examination without being allowed to bring a friend, family member, or counsel with him. The trial court declined to impose the discovery condition that Lindell requested. Lindell then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to permit the examination only on condition that he be allowed to bring with him a friend, family member, or counsel. The Court issued an alternative writ directing the trial court to permit Lindell to have legal counsel present as an observer at the examination or, in the alternative, to show cause for not doing so. In a letter opinion, the trial court respectfully informed the Supreme Court that it would not modify its order and explained its reasoning for that conclusion. In response, Lindell requested that the Supreme Court enter a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to allow a third-party observer. For the reasons that follow, the Supreme Court declined Lindell's request for a peremptory writ and dismiss the alternative writ of mandamus: "we cannot say that the court failed to exercise its discretion or that it exercised its discretion in a manner that was outside the range of choices that the law permits." View "Lindell v. Kalugin" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a trial court's order dismissing as untimely plaintiffs' claims against a public school district. Plaintiffs are seven adult men born between 1957 and 1970. When they were in the fifth grade, a teacher who worked for the district sexually abused them, but they alleged they did not know that their teacher's touching was abusive when it occurred. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting the school district's ORCP 21 motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. View "Doe v. Lake Oswego School District" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the interpretation of a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange sold to Plaintiff Bresee Homes, Inc. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Farmers and denied Bresee's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The dispute stemmed from a homeowner suit in which Bresee claimed Farmers had a duty under the CGL to defend, and to reimburse for any damages arising out of the homeowners' suit. Upon review of the subject policy, the Supreme Court concluded that the Farmers owed a duty to defend to Bresee. Accordingly, the Court concluded the trial court erred in granting Farmers' motion for summary judgment, and for denying Bresee's cross-motion on the issue of the duty to defend. The Court could not determine whether the policy afforded a basis for indemnification, and as such, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Bresee Homes, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange" on Justia Law

An emergency room doctor telephoned defendant (an on-call neurosurgeon)to ask his advice about plaintiff, who had come into the emergency room for treatment. When plaintiff later sued defendant for malpractice, the jury returned a verdict in defendant's favor. The jury found that defendant was not acting as plaintiff's doctor and, as a result, owed her no duty. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court should have directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor on that issue. The Supreme Court allowed defendant's petition for review to consider that issue. Because the Court concluded that the jury could have found that defendant was not acting as plaintiff's doctor, the Court upheld the trial court's ruling denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. The Court also concluded, however, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and, for that reason, agreed that the case be remanded for a new trial. View "Mead v. Legacy Health System" on Justia Law

Defendant CTE Tech Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation that manufactures battery chargers. Defendant Invacare Corporation is an Ohio corporation that manufactures motorized wheelchairs. CTE agreed to supply Invacare with battery chargers built to Invacare's specifications, which Invacare then sold with its motorized wheelchairs in Oregon and the rest of the United States. Plaintiffs brought this action against CTE after their mother died in a fire allegedly caused by a defect in CTE's battery charger. CTE moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against it on the ground that Oregon lacks personal jurisdiction over it. CTE reasoned that due process would permit an Oregon court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it only if CTE had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business here. In CTE's view, the fact that it sold its battery chargers to Invacare in Ohio, which sold them together with its wheelchairs in Oregon, was not sufficient to meet that standard. The trial court denied CTE's motion, and the Supreme Court denied CTE's petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its ruling. CTE then filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. After the Court issued its decision in "J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro," (131 S Ct 2780 (2011)), the Court granted CTE's petition for certiorari, vacated our order, and remanded the case to the Oregon Court for further consideration. On remand, the Oregon Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus to the trial court directing it to vacate its order denying CTE's motion to dismiss or show cause for not doing so. The trial court declined to vacate its order, and the parties briefed the question whether, in light of Nicastro, Oregon courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over CTE. Upon review, the Oregon Supreme Court held that they may and accordingly dismissed the alternative writ. View "Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation" on Justia Law