Richmond v. Zimbrick Logging, Inc.
124 Or. App. 631, 863 P.2d 520, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1896 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injured plaintiff may recover damages for impairment of earning capacity without proving a history of past earnings or a specific intent to be gainfully employed in the future. The injury is to the loss of the capacity to earn, which is distinct from the loss of actual wages.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a passenger in a car, was injured when the vehicle was struck by a logging truck owned by Zimbrick Logging, Inc. and driven by Pyle.
- Plaintiff was a homemaker and had not been employed outside the home since 1971, except for occasional odd jobs.
- At the time of the accident, she was raising five children, homeschooling three of them.
- Plaintiff assisted her husband, a minister, by volunteering at his church and performing other related duties.
- Neither plaintiff nor her husband testified that she had any plans to begin a career or seek paid employment outside the home before the accident occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants Zimbrick Logging, Inc. and Pyle in an Oregon trial court for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, which included an award of $30,000 for impaired earning capacity.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- Defendants (appellants) appealed that specific portion of the judgment awarding damages for impaired earning capacity to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, with the plaintiff as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injured plaintiff need to prove a history of past earnings or a future intent to be gainfully employed to recover damages for impairment of earning capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, J.
No. A plaintiff is not required to prove she has worked in the past or intended to do so in the future to recover for impaired earning capacity. The court held that the impairment of a person’s earning capacity is a compensable injury distinct from a loss of earnings. The law protects the lost capacity to earn, regardless of whether the plaintiff would have chosen to exercise that capacity. The court reasoned that this principle is especially applicable to homemakers, students, and others not in the paid workforce. Expert testimony based on general statistical data, such as average earnings for a person with the plaintiff's education and age, is admissible to help the jury quantify this loss, as the jury must infer the value of this lost capacity with or without such aid. Any challenges to the specifics of the expert's statistical model go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between 'lost wages' and 'impaired earning capacity' in Oregon tort law. It confirms that a plaintiff's lack of a formal employment history does not bar recovery for the loss of their ability to earn money in the future. The ruling is significant for plaintiffs who are not in the traditional workforce, such as homemakers, students, or the unemployed, as it validates the use of expert testimony and general economic data to establish the value of their lost potential. This precedent makes it easier for such plaintiffs to prove and recover what can be a substantial component of their economic damages.
