 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon Corp. v. Young12/10/1998
Argued and submitted May 3, 1995; resubmitted May 27, 1998.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the circuit court with instructions to enter judgment on plaintiff's fraud claim consistent with the jury verdict.
DURHAM, J.
This action arises from a dispute over a contract to build a commercial building. Plaintiff brought four claims against defendants, including breach of contract and fraud. The jury returned a verdict and the court entered judgment for plaintiff. However, the court subsequently granted a new trial on the fraud claim, because the jury had awarded punitive damages but no compensatory damages for fraud.
Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court had erred in granting a new trial. Building Structures, Inc. v. Young, 131 Or App 88, 94, 883 P2d 1308 (1994). The Court of Appeals decided that, although defendants had asserted that the jury's award of punitive damages on the fraud claim was defective, defendants had failed to raise that objection when the jury still was present. Id. at 93. The Court of Appeals reasoned that defendants' failure to raise that objection in a timely manner deprived plaintiff and the circuit court of the opportunity to resubmit the verdict to the jury for correction and constituted a waiver of the objection. Id. at 92. Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals held that, because defendants had waived their objection to the verdict, and therefore were foreclosed from subsequently attacking the resulting judgment based on the verdict, the circuit court had erred in granting a new trial. The Court of Appeals stated:
"In this case, defendants allowed a patently defective verdict to stand. Then, after the jury was discharged, they sought to take advantage of the defect. As in Smith [v. J. C. Penney Co., 269 Or 643, 525 P2d 1299 (1974),] and Marquam [Investment Corp. v. Myers, 35 Or App 23, 581 P2d 545, rev den 284 Or 341 (1978)], that sort of 'laying in the weeds' is impermissible." 131 Or App at 93. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Court of Appeals.
The underlying facts are not pertinent to the resolution of the question before this court. It is sufficient to state that defendants retained plaintiff to design and construct a commercial building. A dispute arose between the parties, defendants contracted with another builder to complete the project, and this action followed. Plaintiff sought damages on theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraud. Defendants admitted liability on quantum meruit for the value of plaintiff's design work, but denied liability on the other claims.
The case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a special verdict for plaintiff for $23,450 on the breach of contract claim. With respect to the fraud claim, the special verdict stated:
"4. Are defendants liable to plaintiff for fraud?
"Answer Yes (Yes or No)
"If you answered 'yes', go to Question No. 5. If you answered 'No', do not answer any further questions, sign and return this verdict form.
"5. What is the amount of plaintiff's damages as a result of defendants' fraud?
"Answer $-0- (General Damages)
"Answer $51,550.00 (Punitive Damages)" (Emphasis in original.)
Neither party objected to the verdict. The court received it and dismissed the jury. The court entered judgment for, among other things, the amount of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiff on the fraud claim.
Later, defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ORCP 63, or in the alternative for a new trial, ORCP 64, on the br
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|