OREGON REFORMS

Appeal Bond Reform: H.B. 2368 (2003).  Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $150 million.

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 323 (1987): Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.580 .  Permits a judge to reduce awards for collateral source payments, excluding life insurance and other death benefits, benefits for which plaintiff have paid premiums, retirement benefits, disability benefits, pension plan benefits, and federal social security benefits.

Joint and Several Liability Reform: SB 601 (1995): Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.485.  Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages, except where the defendants is determined to be insolvent within one year of the final judgment.  In those cases, a defendant less than 20% at fault would be liable for no more than two times her original exposure and a defendant more than 20% liable would be liable for the full amount of damages.

Joint and Several Liability Reform: SB 323 (1987).  Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of  noneconomic damages.  Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages, where the defendant is found to be less than 15% at fault.  

Noneconomic Damages Reform: SB 323 (1987).  Limits the award of noneconomic damages to $500,000.  The $500,000 limit on noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death actions arising out of common law violated the right to jury trial provision of the State Constitution.  Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 987 P.2d 463 (Or. 1999).

Obesity Litigation Reform: H.B. 2591 (2005).  Exempts from civil liability persons involved in the selling of food (as described in ORS 616.210) for a claim of injury or death caused by the consumption of food.  The liability exemption does not apply if the food-related condition was caused by: adulterated food (as described in ORS 616.235), reliance on information that has been misbranded (as described in ORS 616.250), a violation of 21 U.S.C. 301 prohibiting adulterated or misbranded food, or for any other violation of any other state or federal law related to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertisement, labeling or sale of food and the violation was committed knowingly and willfully.

Punitive Damages Reform: SB 482 (1995): Or. Rev. Stat. § 18.537.  Requires 40% of punitive damages awards to be paid to the prevailing party, 60% to the state fund, and no more than 20% to the attorney of the prevailing party.  Requires a plaintiff to show by “clear and convincing” evidence that a defendant “acted with malice or has shown a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and has acted with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.”  Provides for court review of jury-awarded punitive damages.  Bars the claiming of punitive damages in an original complaint.  Requires a plaintiff to show a prima facie case for liability before amending a complaint to include a punitive damages claim.  The split-recovery statute allocating 60% of punitive damages award to the state did not violate the right to a remedy, the right to a jury trial, the takings or tax provisions, or the separation of powers under the State Constitution.  DeMendoza v. Huffman, 2002 WL 1827841 (Or. Aug. 8, 2002).

Punitive Damages Reform: SB 323 (1987).  Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence.  Provides an FDA standards defense to punitive damages.