On review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. After examining the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 30.920, the Court concluded the legislature did not intend to exclude hospitals from the scope of ORS 30.920 and that a hospital that supplies and administers a dangerously defective drug in conjunction with providing healthcare services can be a “seller” “engaged in the business of selling” that drug for the purposes of strict products liability. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from imposing grossly excessive punitive damages awards. In reviewing whether an award is grossly excessive, Oregon courts will look to (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct, (2) the disparity or ratio between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award, and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Trebelhorn v. Prime Wimbledon SPE, LLC, 372 Or 27 (2024); Flynn, C.J. The plaintiff was represented by Mark McDougal. Kristian Roggendorf filed an amicus brief on behalf of OTLA. The plaintiff was a tenant traversing an ill-maintained walkway in the apartment complex owned and operated by the defendant. The walkway collapsed and the plaintiff fell partially through, injuring his knee. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for negligence and for violation of the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act, ORS 90.100 et seq. At trial, the defendants admitted they violated the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act and acted negligently because, inter alia, they knew the walkway was dangerous and failed to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from that danger. The jury awarded the plaintiff $45,597 in economic damages and $250,000 in noneconomic damages. In addition, the jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages: $10 million against each of the defendants. The circuit court reduced the punitive damages award to approximately $5.3 million, or $2.7 million against each of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the punitive damages awards were so grossly excessive as to violate the prohibition on deprivation of property set forth in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court used the approach adopted by the United States Supreme Court in BMW v. Gore, 517 US 559, 574–75 (1996), in which the Court examined (1) the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct, (2) the ratio between the punitive damage award and the plaintiff’s actual or potential harm, and (3) comparable civil penalties in order to determine whether a particular award was grossly excessive. While the court acknowledged the reprehensibility of the defendants’ conduct and comparable civil sanctions supported significant punitive damage awards, the court concluded the record did not establish the kind of exceptional circumstances See Between the Sheets p. 54 53 Trial Lawyer | Summer 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=