Sodaro v. Boyd
325 Or. App. 511, 529 P.3d 961 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'but-for' causation instruction is the proper standard in most negligence cases, even where multiple potential causes of injury exist. The 'substantial-factor' instruction is reserved for exceptional circumstances, which must be specifically argued by the party requesting it.
Facts:
- Ignatius Sodaro, 76, was a front-seat passenger in an SUV driven by his son.
- The SUV, after starting to move from a green light, had to stop suddenly to avoid a car that ran a red light.
- Immediately following the sudden stop, a car driven by Carnetta Boyd collided with the rear of the SUV.
- Sodaro testified he heard a 'pop' in his shoulder during the sudden stop but only experienced pain in his neck, back, and shoulder after Boyd's car struck the SUV.
- Sodaro had a preexisting degenerative spinal condition that made him more susceptible to injury.
- At trial, expert witnesses presented conflicting opinions about whether Sodaro's injuries were caused by the sudden stop, the rear-end collision, or an aggravation of his preexisting condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Ignatius Sodaro sued Carnetta Boyd for negligence in the Multnomah County Circuit Court.
- At trial, Sodaro requested a 'substantial-factor' jury instruction on causation, while Boyd requested a 'but-for' instruction.
- The trial court sided with Boyd and provided the jury with the 'but-for' causation instruction.
- The jury found that Boyd was negligent and that her negligence was a cause of damages to Sodaro.
- The jury awarded Sodaro $4,339.98 for past medical expenses and $2,400.00 for non-economic damages.
- Sodaro, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court gave an improper jury instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence case with multiple potential causes for an injury, does a trial court err by giving a 'but-for' causation instruction instead of a requested 'substantial-factor' instruction when no exceptional circumstances are argued?
Opinions:
Majority - Mooney, J.
No. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury with the 'but-for' causation standard. Following the precedent set in Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter, the 'but-for' instruction is the correct and primary test for cause-in-fact in most negligence cases. The court reasoned that the 'substantial-factor' test is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances, such as when two concurrent causes would each have been sufficient, operating alone, to produce the identical harm. Sodaro did not argue that his case presented such an exceptional circumstance. The court rejected the notion that a 'but-for' instruction misleads a jury into believing the defendant's conduct must be the sole or predominant cause, affirming that it correctly asks whether the harm would have occurred in the absence of the defendant's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the Oregon Supreme Court's holding in Haas, solidifying the 'but-for' test as the default causation standard in Oregon negligence law. It clarifies that a party seeking the 'substantial-factor' instruction bears the burden of arguing that their case fits within one of the narrow, recognized exceptions. The ruling also shows that a defendant's use of an 'empty chair' defense—blaming other causes—does not automatically necessitate a 'substantial-factor' instruction, thereby maintaining a high bar for departing from the standard causation test.
