 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawson v. Hoke9/9/2005
En Banc
Argued and submitted September 10, 2004.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
De Muniz, J., dissented and filed an opinion in which Durham and Riggs, JJ., joined.
This personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision raises a fundamental issue concerning the legislature's ability to choose a particular legal device as a way to advance a particular public policy. Here, the legislature chose the device of precluding an award of certain forms of civil damages to those who violate the policy in question -- compulsory automobile insurance -- as a kind of "stick" to encourage persons to abide by that public policy. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the legislative choice in this particular case is a constitutionally permissible one.
The pertinent background and procedural facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which defendant was at fault. Plaintiff suffered both economic and non-economic injuries as a result of the accident. Plaintiff brought the present action against defendant, seeking damages for both forms of injury . However, as plaintiff acknowledges, she was, at the time of the accident, an uninsured motorist. A statute, ORS 31.715, set out post at ___ (slip op at 7-8) specifically precludes uninsured drivers from recovering "non-economic damages" for injuries sustained in an action arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle.
Before trial, defendant, relying on ORS 31.715, moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of plaintiff's entitlement to non-economic damages. The trial court denied the motion and, after a bench trial, awarded the plaintiff $5,790 in non-economic damages. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed that part of the judgment for plaintiff that awarded non-economic damages. Lawson v. Hoke, 190 Or App 92, 77 P3d 1160 (2003). We allowed plaintiff's petition for review and now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In this court, plaintiff argues that her right to recover damages for the non-economic injuries that she suffered as a result of defendant's negligence is a fundamental right that was recognized in 1857, when Oregon's constitution was drafted. It follows, plaintiff reasons, that the right to recover damages for such injuries is a "remedy" protected under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. Accordingly, plaintiff argues, to the extent that ORS 31.715 precludes her from recovering damages for those injuries -- i.e., precludes her from obtaining that remedy -- it violates Article I, section 10. In addition, plaintiff argues that, to the extent that she has a protected constitutional claim to non-economic damages, Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees her the right to have a jury decide her entitlement to those damages. And, she argues, because ORS 31.715 removes the question of her entitlement to non-economic damages from the jury's consideration, it also violates Article 1, section 17.
We first examine the constitutionality of ORS 31.715 under Article I, section 10. In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 23 P3d 333 (2001), this court analyzed the limits on the legislature's power under Article I, section 10, to enact laws purporting to limit a person's right to seek redress for another person's negligence in the workplace. Smothers involved an injured employee's challenge to the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law, which effectively denied a remedy to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|