Today the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Estate of James Ritchie v. Helbig, which was argued and submitted in December 2024.  
This wrongful death claim arose out of a motorcycle collision.  The jury allocated fault to three defendants (Ritchie 46%), Helbig (40%), and Sauls (14%).  The jury awarded economic damages of $2,891,588 and non-economic damages of $2,108,412.  After the trial, the trial court reduced the non-economic damages award to $500,000 per the damages cap in ORS 31.710(1).  That left an award of $3,391,588.  Plaintiff appealed the application of the cap.
Plaintiff challenged the cap as violating the constitutional right to a remedy under Article I, § 10, and impermissibly interfering with a jury's determination of damages under Article I, § 17.

As to the second issue, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument and held that Article I, section 17 guarantees only a procedural right to have a jury decide facts, not a substantive right to the amount of damages awarded.

The challenge under Article I, § 10 required more consideration. Plaintiff argued under prior case law that substantial limitations on remedies for core injuries require a sufficiently weighty governmental justification. Plaintiff argued that the wrongful death implicated core interests and that the application of the cap impermissibly limited recovery.

In its assessment, the Court of Appeals looked back to Greist v. Phillips, which affirmed the application of a wrongful death damages cap under the remedy clause.  The Court of Appeals noted that at a high level, wrongful death claims are a statutory creation not recognized at common law.  Wrongful death claims have almost always been subject to a statutory cap.  Looking at prior case law (the Busch matter), the Court of Appeals cited to precedent striking down the cap in a personal injury claim – noting that the court there specifically declined to overrule Greist.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the wrongful death statute represents a legislative version of a quid pro quo – it created a cause of action and therefore can define the limits of that action.

After determining that the application of the cap as a whole was permissible, the Court of Appeals then had to look to ensure that the reduced award was not a “paltry fraction” of the jury's verdict.  It determined that the remaining recovery of $3,391,588 was substantial as compared to the original $5,000,000 award.

Overall, this opinion confirms the constitutionality of the wrongful death non-economic damages cap.  However, the trial court still has to make a determination regarding whether the reduced award in a particular case is a substantial remedy.