Oregon’s Wrongful Death Damages Cap Ruled Unconstitutional: Our Case Results

I’ve been at this 34 years, and I can’t tell you how many phone calls I’ve had with families to explain to them that the value of the loss of their child or their loved one was determined by a legislature in 1987.

There’s nobody that I talk to about him that doesn’t become emotional, because he was just that great. He was the most fun person. Every day was fun, up until the day that he died, and I can honestly say not another day has been fun like it was.

I just want to tell you that I’m extremely thankful and blessed to have you in my life, and I thank God every day that he put me there for me. And I’m going to cherish you till the day I die.

So Grant was my husband. He was unlike anyone I’ve ever met, and just always wanted the best for everyone. So being his wife, I was beyond spoiled and loved by him. And then when we had our daughter, it was like a whole other level.

He would get up and go to work super early in the morning. He worked for the city at the time. It was really early and our daughter was asleep. And my phone rang. It’s super weird that someone would be calling me that early. And they said, “We need you to get to the hospital right away. He’s been in an accident.”

It was like one of those moments that is in a movie, where I walk into the emergency room, my family has all gotten there at that time, and Grant’s family. And I’m like, “I need to see him. I need to see him.” And they’re like, “You need to wait right here.” And I said, “Is he gone? What?” And they said, “Nobody told you.” And that’s the moment that I knew. That’s how I heard.

It was an impaired driver. He ran him off the road. It was truly like the worst thing I will ever experience in my life. I turn around and they’re escorting the guy. He’s walking out of the hospital in handcuffs with just a patch on his head. This man just killed my husband because of these terrible choices that he was making, and he’s walking out of the hospital.

First of all, it was tragic. It was tragic, and the driver was on meth and alcohol.

Thirty-nine years ago, in 1987, they created wrongful death caps of a half million dollars for loss of love and companionship in Oregon. And for 39 years, that statute was ruled to be constitutional.

I think it’s just an arbitrary number that was decided years ago. And it doesn’t take into account what’s happened to a family, and it devalues the life of people. There’s no dollar amount to put on his life. There’s a story and there’s a person behind that. There’s a life there. There’s a family.

I’ve been looking for the right case for a long time to go ahead and challenge that cap in court, and this case came along and just seemed ideal for that. What we wanted to do is get an award high enough that the Court of Appeals would be able to recognize how ridiculous a $500,000 cap created in 1987 was in the face of such a tragic loss.

John put on a trial in front of the judge, a hearing showing the evidence about what happened and the damage to the family. The judge heard the testimony, heard that he burned alive in the car and had a two-month-old child, that they were a lovely young couple, and heard all the evidence about it. And the case brought the judge to tears. So she determined what the value was for this family, and the judge then, due to the law, had to reduce that.

So instead of the judgment being for $20 million in non-economic damages, it was $500,000. I mean, when you first hear $20 million and then, “Oh, but this is reduced to $500,000,” it’s just shocking. Five hundred thousand doesn’t even touch on just the death alone, of how bad he suffered.

I asked her at the time, I had to explain, there’s no insurance. There’s nothing I can do as a civil lawyer to compensate you and your young daughter. What I can do, if you’re willing to try it, is take a run at changing the law.

He’s a rare bird, because he’s willing to take on challenges other people won’t. He’s not interested in what’s the financial incentive for him, for our firm. He’s interested in what’s the bigger picture, to change the law for all Oregonians.

Grant would want to make a difference. And I think about my specific situation, being a widow and a young mom, and being terrified of what my life was going to look like. I lost everything. I wanted to be sure that anyone else who goes through this, I wanted them to be taken care of.

It’s been six years now. She put up with this for six years, and there aren’t many people who have the backbone of someone like Caitlin to be able to do this.

The Oregon Court of Appeals basically decided that in certain cases, where a jury determines that the loss far exceeds the $500,000, then that family no longer has an adequate remedy. So the cap becomes unconstitutional as it relates to that case.

In my heart of hearts, I’ve always believed that a half million dollar cap in a death case was just not fair. It was unjust. In this instance, moving forward from this case, that is no longer the law of the land in Oregon.

We just felt like it was a little nudge from Grant, like, “Look, we’re still making changes here. We’re still doing good.”

It’s massive. It was the best outcome given the tragedy she experienced. And I think she took a lot of pride in knowing that she had the strength and the courage to do that. I think her child will go forth and grow to learn that her father’s death actually meant something in Oregon.

I hope that people remember the loving, fun, caring man that he was. The one who looks out for other people, who sees maybe the person who isn’t being seen in a room.

Caitlin’s case will now affect every Oregonian, many of whom have not received the phone call or the tragic news that a loved one has been killed. But if and when they receive that news, they now can thank Caitlin for her courage in removing the barrier they would have faced to access justice.