punitive damages claim in Oregon

2018Applying the standard set forth in Williams , the court denied BP's motion to strike the $200 statutory damage award because the award was not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." 251 U.S. at 67 , 40 S.Ct. 71 .

2018Applying the standard set forth in Williams , the court denied BP's motion to strike the $200 statutory damage award because the award was not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." 251 U.S. at 67 , 40 S.Ct. 71 .

2015See also ORS 30.900 (a product liability civil action is “a civil action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a product for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of” any “design, inspection, testing, manufacturing or other defect in the product”; “failure to warn regarding a product”; or “failure to properly instruct in the use of a product”); Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 344 Or 45, 58 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008), cert dismissed as improvidently granted, 556 US 178 (2009) (“Oregon law provides that, in product liability actions (such as the

2015See also ORS 30.900 (a product liability civil action is “a civil action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a product for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of” any “design, inspection, testing, manufacturing or other defect in the product”; “failure to warn regarding a product”; or “failure to properly instruct in the use of a product”); Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 344 Or 45, 58 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008), cert dismissed as improvidently granted, 556 US 178 (2009) (“Oregon law provides that, in product liability actions (such as the

2015See also ORS 30.900 (a product liability civil action is “a civil action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a product for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of” any “design, inspection, testing, manufacturing or other defect in the product”; “failure to warn regarding a product”; or “failure to properly instruct in the use of a product”); Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 344 Or 45, 58 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008), cert dismissed as improvidently granted, 556 US 178 (2009) (“Oregon law provides that, in product liability actions (such as the

2012The court concluded that the defendants had waived their right to a jury trial by failing to raise the issue until after the trial court had made its factual *423 findings and determined that a punitive damages award would not be appropriate. 294 Or at 402 .

2011As this court explained in Patton , before a judgment is entered awarding punitive damages, a plaintiff has the right to control the punitive damages claim, including the right to settle away the state’s 60 percent statutory share. 349 Or at 243-44 .

2002That decision addressed post-verdict review of punitive damages awards and, to the extent that it discussed whether the plaintiffs had presented clear and convincing evidence of a punitive damages claim, it did so as a factual recounting of what the jury had concluded “at trial.” Id. at 553 . 3 The entire text of ORS 18.537(1) provides: “Punitive damages are not recoverable in a civil action unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the party against whom punitive damages are sought has acted with malice or has shown a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonab

2002Peter’s v. Harvey Beach, 26 Conn 355, 1857 WL 960 (1857); Fowler v. Sergeant, 1 Grant 355 , 1856 WL 6922 (Pa 1856); Black v. The Carollton Railroad Co., 10 La Ann 33, 1855 WL 113 (1855); Fry v. Bennett, 1 Abb Pr 289, 1855 WL 6398 (NY Sup 1855); McWilliams v. Bragg, 3 Wis 424, 1854 WL 3450 (1854); Taber v. Hutson, 5 Ind 322, 1854 WL 3361 (1854); True & ux. v. Plumley, 36 Me 466, 1853 WL 2042 (1853). 12 Not every state acceded quietly.

2002Peter’s v. Harvey Beach, 26 Conn 355, 1857 WL 960 (1857); Fowler v. Sergeant, 1 Grant 355 , 1856 WL 6922 (Pa 1856); Black v. The Carollton Railroad Co., 10 La Ann 33, 1855 WL 113 (1855); Fry v. Bennett, 1 Abb Pr 289, 1855 WL 6398 (NY Sup 1855); McWilliams v. Bragg, 3 Wis 424, 1854 WL 3450 (1854); Taber v. Hutson, 5 Ind 322, 1854 WL 3361 (1854); True & ux. v. Plumley, 36 Me 466, 1853 WL 2042 (1853). 12 Not every state acceded quietly.

2002R & C Ranch, LLC, 177 Or App at 316 .

2000Because punitive damages can be awarded for intentional fraud, McMullin v. Murphy, 89 Or App 230 , 748 P2d 171 , rev den 305 Or 576 (1988), defendant’s evidence was sufficient to support amending his complaint to add a punitive damages claim.

2000Because punitive damages can be awarded for intentional fraud, McMullin v. Murphy, 89 Or App 230 , 748 P2d 171 , rev den 305 Or 576 (1988), defendant’s evidence was sufficient to support amending his complaint to add a punitive damages claim.

1993More important than the consideration referred to in Wheeler that such an approach might inhibit protected speech in other cases, see supra, 317 Or. at 465 , 857 P.2d at 115 , however, is the more basic point that the punitive damages instruction in this case allowed punitive damages to be awarded and the amount of those punitive damages to be determined, at least in part because of defendants' expressive conduct and political speech.

1993More important than the consideration referred to in Wheeler that such an approach might inhibit protected speech in other cases, see supra, 317 Or. at 465 , 857 P.2d at 115 , however, is the more basic point that the punitive damages instruction in this case allowed punitive damages to be awarded and the amount of those punitive damages to be determined, at least in part because of defendants' expressive conduct and political speech.

1993Because [the supervisor] failed to ask for a punitive damages instruction limiting the jury’s consideration to non-expressive conduct, we uphold the punitive damages award.” 302 Or at 629 .

1993Because Scott failed to ask for a punitive damages instruction limiting the jury’s consideration to non-expressive conduct, we uphold the punitive damages award. ’ ’ Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co., supra, 302 Or at 629 .

1993See State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 164 , 838 P2d 558 (1992) (discussing Article I, section 8, analysis); State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402 , 649 P2d 569 (1982) (same). 9 I conclude that the punitive damages instruction in this case, 10 when applied to defendants’ tortious conduct where the tort itself was not speech-based but where the communicative component was a significant part of defendants’ overall activity, impermissibly allowed the jury to consider the significant communicative components of defendants’ tortious activity.

1993See State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 164 , 838 P2d 558 (1992) (discussing Article I, section 8, analysis); State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402 , 649 P2d 569 (1982) (same). 9 I conclude that the punitive damages instruction in this case, 10 when applied to defendants’ tortious conduct where the tort itself was not speech-based but where the communicative component was a significant part of defendants’ overall activity, impermissibly allowed the jury to consider the significant communicative components of defendants’ tortious activity.

1992In this connection, see Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or 86, 99-100 , 342 P2d 790 (1960) (stating that the plaintiff “might recover nominal damages even though he sustained no actual pecuniary loss as a result of the trespass”); Hampton v. Portland Gen.

1992In this connection, see Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or 86, 99-100 , 342 P2d 790 (1960) (stating that the plaintiff “might recover nominal damages even though he sustained no actual pecuniary loss as a result of the trespass”); Hampton v. Portland Gen.

1992Sometimes a defendant will use a motion for a directed verdict as the equivalent of a motion to withdraw a certain claim for lack of evidence to support it, as, for example, “I move for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim because the evidence is legally insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Or, “I move for a directed verdict on Count Number 1 because the evidence is insufficient.” Strictly speaking, a preferable motion would be to ‘ ‘withdraw from the consideration of the jury the plaintiffs claim on the ground that the evidence is, as a matter of law, insufficien

1992Sometimes a defendant will use a motion for a directed verdict as the equivalent of a motion to withdraw a certain claim for lack of evidence to support it, as, for example, “I move for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim because the evidence is legally insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.” Or, “I move for a directed verdict on Count Number 1 because the evidence is insufficient.” Strictly speaking, a preferable motion would be to ‘ ‘withdraw from the consideration of the jury the plaintiffs claim on the ground that the evidence is, as a matter of law, insufficien

1991Defendant relies on Hudson v. Peavey Oil Company, 279 Or 3 , 566 P2d 175 (1977), where the court held that a punitive damages claim should not have been submitted to the jury in an action arising out of the leakage of gasoline from the defendant’s storage tanks to the plaintiffs’ property.

1991Defendant relies on Hudson v. Peavey Oil Company, 279 Or 3 , 566 P2d 175 (1977), where the court held that a punitive damages claim should not have been submitted to the jury in an action arising out of the leakage of gasoline from the defendant’s storage tanks to the plaintiffs’ property.

1991Section 8 protects speech from intrusion by any branch of government, including the judiciary and the judge-made doctrine of punitive damages. 4 Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 307 Or 674, 680 , 773 P2d 1294 (1989); see also In re Fadeley, 310 Or 548, 574 , 802 P2d 31 (1990) (Unis, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).

1991Section 8 protects speech from intrusion by any branch of government, including the judiciary and the judge-made doctrine of punitive damages. 4 Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 307 Or 674, 680 , 773 P2d 1294 (1989); see also In re Fadeley, 310 Or 548, 574 , 802 P2d 31 (1990) (Unis, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).

1989Under the circumstances of this case, the punitive damages claim was properly stricken by the court.” 298 Or at 662 .