Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council
Oregon Supreme Court · 2023-02-24 · cited 3×
In this negligence case, plaintiff sued the Oregon State Fair Council after falling on wet aluminum bleachers at a fair event, alleging failure to maintain safe premises. Before trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of a similar fall by a young girl around the same time and place under OEC 403 as unduly prejudicial, and the trial court granted the motion while noting plaintiff's arguments were preserved. Plaintiff later sought reconsideration during trial after defendant elicited related testimony, but the court adhered to its exclusion ruling, leading to a defense verdict. Plaintiff appealed the evidentiary decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that the issue was not adequately preserved. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiff had preserved the admissibility argument by responding to defendant's motion and the trial court's statements, and remanded for the Court of Appeals to address the merits of the OEC 403 ruling.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter
Oregon Supreme Court · 2023-02-24 · cited 21×
In this negligence case, plaintiffs sued the estate of a driver and an insurer after a car accident, alleging that the defendant's negligent driving caused their injuries despite preexisting spinal conditions. At trial, the court gave a but-for causation instruction to the jury but refused plaintiffs' request for a substantial factor instruction, and the jury found for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err because a but-for instruction accurately states the cause-in-fact requirement even in cases involving multiple potential causes. The court reasoned that a substantial factor instruction is not required in such cases and that other instructions on preexisting conditions and damages can address related issues.
torts & liabilityprocedure
State v. Fox
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-11-17 · cited 11×
In State v. Fox, the defendant was convicted of second- and third-degree assault after striking the victims with a metal chain during a property dispute, causing significant injuries. The trial court ordered restitution for the victims' medical expenses and for attorney fees the victims voluntarily incurred by hiring a private lawyer to participate in the criminal proceedings, including appearances at hearings and advocacy for a probationary sentence to facilitate restitution payments. The Oregon Supreme Court held that such attorney fees do not qualify as recoverable "economic damages" under ORS 137.106, because the statute's definition aligns with civil damages where fees to pursue recovery are not included, the prosecutor is responsible for presenting evidence of damages, and victims are not required to hire counsel. The court therefore reversed the restitution award for attorney fees, affirmed other aspects of the lower court's decisions, and remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Chitwood
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-10-20 · cited 196×
In State v. Chitwood, the defendant was convicted on three counts of sexual abuse involving his 13-year-old stepdaughter after a jury trial. On appeal, he argued that two statements by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument—referring to facts not in evidence and misstating the state's burden of proof—were so prejudicial that they deprived him of a fair trial, warranting reversal under plain error review despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the statements improper but declining plain error review due to insufficient prejudice and possible strategic reasons for not objecting. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prosecutor's statements constituted plain error because they were impermissible and, taken together, egregious enough to deny a fair trial, and it exercised its discretion to correct the error. The court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the circuit court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-07-28 · cited 4×
In this defamation case, a piano tuner who volunteered with a school district sued the district after employees reported that he appeared intoxicated while working on school property, allegedly violating his contract and district policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district on the ground that its employees enjoyed an absolute privilege for statements made in the course and scope of their duties, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the common-law absolute privilege does not extend to all public employees acting within the scope of their employment and that the employees here—performing routine tasks—were not entitled to it. The court reasoned that the privilege is narrowly limited to high-level executive officers and that extending it broadly would shield malicious statements without sufficient public justification, leaving only a qualified privilege available in such circumstances.
torts & liability
Scott v. Kesselring
Oregon Supreme Court · 2022-07-08 · cited 14×
In this personal injury negligence case, plaintiff sued defendant after a rear-end car collision, seeking damages for physical injuries and severe emotional distress that led to a suicide attempt. Defendant admitted responsibility for the accident but contested whether the suicide attempt was a foreseeable result of her conduct and moved to exclude evidence that she had been using her cellphone at the time. The trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence relevant to the foreseeability issue, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the trial court judgment, reasoning that evidence of defendant's full conduct, including cellphone use, was relevant to whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of the specific harm plaintiff suffered and was not unfairly prejudicial.
torts & liability