One of the hardest things for a person who has been seriously hurt or injured in an accident to understand is, “What is my case worth?” At Clooten Law, our attorneys specialize in the maximum recovery possible in each case. What a particular case is worth is a complicated question, and our years of training and experience helps us arrive at what we believe to be a fair case valuation.
We cannot really give a rule of thumb, or too many generalities, because everybody’s case is so unique for their situation. What we can promise, is to walk you through the process, and make sure you are comfortable each step of the way.
Whether in a car accident, as a pedestrian, or in some other accident, Clooten Law will work hard to get you the full recovery available to you under Oregon Law.
There are 3 basic areas of recovery in personal injury cases. Economic damages, Non-Economic damages, and Punitive damages.
Example Case. This case is an example of serious physical injury, as defined under Oregon Law, and affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals. The question is what can a person recover in Non-Economic Damages? This is usually a question where a defendant has been purely negligent
BUSCH v. McINNIS WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., 292 Or App 820 (2018).
Facts: “Plaintiff suffered severe injuries, including the traumatic amputation of his leg above the knee, when he was struck by defendant’s garbage truck as he crossed a street in downtown Portland. Defendant admitted liability, and the case eventually proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. The jury found that plaintiff was entitled to $3,021,922 in economic damages and $10,500,000 in noneconomic damages. After trial, defendant moved to reduce plaintiff’s noneconomic damages to $500,000 under ORS 31.710(1). The parties disputed whether, under Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016), such a reduction would violate the remedy clause. The trial court granted the motion, reduced plaintiff’s noneconomic damages to $500,000, and entered judgment accordingly.”
Background on claim limits: The Oregon Legislature is allowed to limit the remedy (the amount an individual can recover) subject to some limits. Please take note, this is not recovery against a public body, See, ORS Section 30.265, “every public body is subject to civil action for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties”.
In a 2020 decision, Busch v. McInnis Waste System, Inc., 366 Or. 628 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court, applying the Horton analysis, held that application of ORS 31.710(1) as a limit on the noneconomic damages that a court can award to a plaintiff in a personal injury case violates Article I, section 10. Busch involved an action by a pedestrian against a garbage company for injuries sustained when a garbage truck struck pedestrian.
Our attorneys in Hermiston and Pendleton, Oregon also practice within the area of the Oregon Torts claims act, but this explanation is not related to that area of the law.
The general rule as to whether a remedy is just is examined under the “Horton” case. “In Horton, the Supreme Court “reexamined at length whether the remedy clause provides a substantive guarantee of a remedy in certain cases.”” Generally, if proven, a claimant is entitled to all their economic losses (out of pocket costs directly related to a case, lost wages, medical bills, etc.).
The question is what recovery a person will receive for non-economic loss (commonly called pain and suffering) ORS 31.710. The limit on the remedy allowed for non-economic damages under 31.710 (1) is $500,000. “We [the court] noted that, according to Horton, such legislation violates the remedy clause if the remedy provided is not “substantial.”” Under the Oregon Constitution Article 1 Section 10. In Vasquez, 288 Or App, the plaintiff was essentially cut in half at the base of the spine. The court noted in that case, “the legislature’s reason for enacting the noneconomic damages cap—which was not concerned with injured claimants—cannot bear the weight of the dramatic reduction in noneconomic damages that the statute requires for the most grievously injured plaintiffs.” In Busch, the court ultimately concluded based on the facts and the law, “Here, we again have a grievously injured plaintiff and a “bare reduction in noneconomic damages without any identifiable quid pro quo or constitutional principle that the cap takes into consideration.” Application of the cap would reduce plaintiff’s noneconomic damages award from $10,500,000 to $500,000 and his overall award from $13,521,922 to $3,521,922.” The Court upheld the jury’s award for $3,021,922 in economic damages and $10,500,000 in noneconomic damages.
The takeaway from all this, aside from the fact that the law is complex and ever changing, is that your non-economic damages will depend on the extent of your injury. Call one of our Hermiston or Pendleton based offices to talk to attorney about your case, and understand your rights.