44 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2024 the court held that, just because the fees included in the general judgment had been paid and the judgment satisfied did not bar the plaintiff from seeking a supplemental judgment for subsequent fees on fees. The court also held that claim preclusion did not apply because the fees on fees were sought in the same case as the general judgment, and also because the “claim” at issue was different. Although the general judgment resolved the fees owing for work performed before May 15, 2019, it did not resolve the separate matter regarding fees on fees for work performed after May 15, 2019. Personal jurisdiction exists over an outof-state defendant who directs an Oregon resident to use the Oregon court system to confer a benefit on the defendant. M.C. v. Quest Global, Inc., 328 Or App 378 (2023); Hellman, J. The plainQuest’s logistics easier by dismissing the SPO. That ultimatum and its consequence, moreover, were the heart of the plaintiffs’ claims against Quest. Although allowed under Oregon’s Workers Compensation law, the OTCA constitutionally bars third-party claims against negligent third-party state employees when a severely injured plaintiff receives workers compensation benefits. Crandall v. State, 328 Or App 452 (2023), Lagesen, C. J. Andrew Wilson represented the plaintiff and James Coon filed the amicus brief for OTLA. The plaintiff was employed by Eagle Fire, a private corporation that supplied workers and heavy equipment to, among other things, assist the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) in fighting wildfires. During the 2018 Sugar Pine fire, while under the direction and supervision of two ODF employees, the plaintiff was severely injured when his bulldozer toppled off a cliff, flipping multiple times. Thereafter, the plaintiff (1) filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits with his employer, and (2) sued the two ODF supervisors for negligence under Oregon’s Employers Liability Law, and the state under a theory of vicarious liability. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged entitlement to $2,000,000 in noneconomic damages, $700,000 in economic damages, and an amount to be determined at trial for future medical expenses. Oregon’s Workers Compensation Law permits third-party actions against negligent actors under ORS 656.154, subject to lien rights under ORS 656.593. Because the alleged damage amounts exceed the Oregon Tort Claim Act’s damage caps, ORS 30.265(4) expressly permits claims against the individual state employees in addition to the state. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed the claims against the individual employees on the state’s motion and argument that the OTCA requires that actions against state employees are limited to a sole action against the state under ORS tiff was represented by Sean Tipton. The plaintiffs, a mother and son truck driving team who live in Gold Hill, Oregon, were employed by the defendant Quest, a Georgia trucking company. The mother told Quest that she had a stalking protective order (SPO) against another Quest employee who also lived in Gold Hill. The plaintiffs requested that their trucking routes be routed through Gold Hill, which Quest accommodated. Over time, that became logistically tricky for Quest because of the SPO. Eventually, Quest told the mother to dismiss the SPO or she would be fired. She did not dismiss the SPO, so Quest fired the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued Quest, but the trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding there were sufficient contacts between Quest and Oregon to satisfy due process because Quest directed the mother to use the Oregon court system to confer a benefit on Quest, specifically, to make Sheets Continued from p 43
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==