 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Whitman-Mccoy v. Department of Corrections12/21/1994
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
91C-11710, CA A80685
1994.OR.40649 ; 887 P.2d 375; 132 Or.App. 45
Filed: December 21, 1994.
PATRICIA S. WHITMAN-MCCOY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF OREGON, RESPONDENT, AND KEITH LEAVITT, DEFENDANT
Kelly E. Ford, Beaverton, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was J. Mark Lawrence, McMinnville
Robert B. Rocklin, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen
Before Warren, P.J., and Edmonds and Haselton, JJ
EDMONDS, Judge.
In this common law wrongful discharge action, the jury returned a verdict that said:
"1. Did defendant Department of Corrections wrongfully discharge the plaintiff from employment?
"ANSWER: 'Yes' or 'No' Yes
" * * * * *
"2. (a) Did the termination cause damages to plaintiff?
"ANSWER: 'Yes' or 'No' No "
The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals and requests a new trial solely on the issue of damages. She argues that the instructions given to the jury regarding damages were erroneous. We reverse.
Plaintiff was employed as a Department of Corrections (DOC) officer trainee from July, 1990, until she was discharged in November, 1990. In her claim, she alleges that she was wrongfully discharged after she gave information to a prisoner, at his request, about Prison Fellowship, an independent Christian ministry to prisoners and their families. During the trial, testimony and documentary evidence about her pecuniary loss resulting from the discharge was admitted. That evidence was uncontroverted by DOC. She also testified about her feelings of frustration and betrayal resulting from her discharge from employment.
At the Conclusion of the evidence, plaintiff proposed instructions on damages, which the trial court rejected. Instead, the trial court gave instructions, to which plaintiff excepted, that used the words "injury" and "injuries" in several places. First, plaintiff argues that the words "injury" and "injuries" misled the jury into believing it could only award damages for physical injuries and that there was no evidence that she suffered physical injuries as a result of her discharge from employment. The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury regarding damages:
"If you find that plaintiff is entitled to damages, then it is your duty to determine the amount of general damages that she has suffered because of any injuries which have been caused by the fault of the defendant.
"The law does not furnish you with any fixed standard by which to measure the exact amount of general damages. The law does require that all compensation allowed be reasonable. You must apply your own considered judgment to determine the amount.
"In determining the amount of general damages, consider each of the following:
"First, consider all past mental pain and suffering, if any, which plaintiff has suffered from such injuries from the time the plaintiff received them up until the present time.
"Two, consider any interference with plaintiff's normal and usual activities, apart from the activities in a gainful occupation which you find have been sustained from the time she received them to the present ti
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|