Wheeler v. Huston
1980 Ore. LEXIS 733, 288 Or. 467, 605 P.2d 1339 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury verdict awarding only special damages in a personal injury negligence case is valid if there is a genuine factual dispute regarding whether general damages were sustained or if the amount of claimed special damages is substantially in dispute; however, a plaintiff waives objections to such a verdict if they fail to request appropriate jury instructions on the right to general or specific special damages.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a milkman, fell while making a delivery to the defendants.
- Plaintiff sued for general damages and specific special damages totaling $9,120.25 (comprising $6,000 for lost wages and $3,120.25 for medical expenses).
- Defendants denied responsibility for the fall and the plaintiff's injuries, claimed plaintiff was also at fault, and disputed the correctness of the amount of lost wages.
- Plaintiff claimed lost wages at $1,200 per month, but his average monthly earnings were between $1,054.79 and $1,055.59.
- Plaintiff's doctor testified to permanent injuries but was not asked if they were caused by the accident, and also noted a prior "dismal history" of plaintiff's back problems seven years earlier.
- Defendants contended that plaintiff's current back problems were not caused by the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants for personal injury negligence in a trial court.
- The jury returned an initial special verdict form finding plaintiff 45% at fault, defendants 55% at fault, and assessing "total money damages" at $9,120.25, the exact amount of claimed special damages. The jury foreman confirmed this award was only for medical expenses and lost wages, not general damages.
- The trial court, over defendants' objections, refused to receive the first verdict, reinstructed the jury that they could not award special damages without general damages, and sent them back for further deliberations.
- After further deliberations, the jury returned a second verdict finding plaintiff 45% at fault, defendants 55% at fault, and assessing "total money damages" at $20,000.
- Judgment was entered on the second verdict.
- Defendants appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment per curiam, citing Mullins v. Rowe and State ex rel Nilsen v. The Shalimar, Inc.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to reconsider the Eisele v. Rood rule regarding verdicts for only special damages.
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 a trial court err by refusing to accept a jury's initial verdict that awards only the exact amount of special damages claimed, and not general damages, when there is a factual dispute about the cause of the injury or the amount of special damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, J.
Yes, the trial court erred in failing to receive the first verdict. The court affirmed the core of the Eisele rule, holding that a verdict for only special damages is valid if there is a genuine question regarding whether any general damages were sustained, or if there is a substantial dispute as to the amount of special damages claimed. If a plaintiff's evidence of injury is merely subjective, or there is evidence that the injuries were not caused by the accident, or objective evidence is controverted, the jury may properly find no general damages. Similarly, if the amount of special damages is substantially disputed, an unsegregated verdict matching the claimed specials can be valid, as it might represent a jury's compromise including some general damages. In this case, there was a dispute over whether plaintiff’s complaints were due to the accident or pre-existing back problems, and the amount of claimed lost wages was strongly disputed. Therefore, the jury could have properly found that the injuries were not caused by the accident or that the special damages were inflated. Furthermore, the court established a new procedural rule: if a plaintiff claims that the right to recover general damages or a specific amount of special damages has been established as a matter of law, they must request an appropriate instruction from the trial judge. Failure to do so will result in a waiver of any objection to a verdict for only the claimed specials.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies a previously confusing area of Oregon personal injury law, specifically concerning "specials-only" verdicts. By expanding the Eisele rule to explicitly include situations where the amount of special damages is disputed and introducing a procedural waiver requirement, the court aims to reduce the frequency of post-trial motions, appeals, and retrials. It places a greater burden on plaintiffs' attorneys to proactively ensure specific jury instructions if they believe damages are established as a matter of law, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and providing more definitive guidance for litigants and lower courts. The ruling acknowledges the jury's role in assessing the actual cause and extent of damages amidst conflicting evidence.
