Plaintiff Who Has Sustained Only Minor, Insubstantial Physical Injuries Not Entitled to Noneconomic Damages
March, 2010
Oregon Association of Defense CounselIn Williams v. Funk, 230 Or App 142 (August 5, 2009), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a personal-injury plaintiff who was awarded economic damages was not also entitled, as a matter of law, to an award of some noneconomic damages where the evidence permitted the jury to find that the plaintiff had suffered only minor, insubstantial injuries.
Plaintiff sued defendant for damages arising from personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff sought both economic and noneconomic damages. During trial the jury heard testimony that plaintiff's arms, shoulder, back, neck, head, and psyche were injured in a car accident. All of this evidence was strenuously disputed by defendant.
Plaintiff requested Uniform Civil Jury Instruction ("UCJI") 70.04, which says "[i]f you find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover economic damages, you must award some noneconomic damages." The trial court refused to give the instruction, noting that the evidence of plaintiff's injuries was arguably subjective; there was evidence that plaintiff's psychic injuries resulted from something other than the car accident; and that defendant contested plaintiff's evidence of injuries.
The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded $4,443.93 in economic damages but zero noneconomic damages. Plaintiff asked the court to reinstruct the jury and also moved for a new trial. Both requests were denied.
On appeal, plaintiff raised several issues, all of which presented the question whether plaintiff was entitled, as a matter of law, to some noneconomic damages since the jury had found liability and awarded economic damages. The appellate court explained that Oregon law permits an award of economic damages without any award of noneconomic damages where there is evidence of some injury, but the evidence would permit the jury to find that the injury—although sufficient to justify an award of economic damages—was too minor and insubstantial to entitle the plaintiff to noneconomic damages. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the court held that plaintiff was not entitled to an award of noneconomic damages as a matter of law because the evidence permitted the jury to find that plaintiff had suffered an injury so minor and insubstantial that it did not justify an award of noneconomic damages.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment without an award of noneconomic damages.