Allen v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1975 |
| Citation | 542 P.2d 896,273 Or. 614 |
| Parties | Harley O. ALLEN, Respondent, v. MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
David K. Young, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Claud A. Ingram, Jr., John Day, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before O'CONNELL, C.J., and McALLISTER, DENECKE, TONGUE, HOWELL and BRYSON, JJ.
This is an action brought under ORS 646.638 to recover compensatory and punitive damages for an unlawful trade practice arising out of an agreement by defendant to move a mobile home owned by plaintiff. 1 The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict of $512.50 general damages and $2,000 punitive damages. Defendant appeals from that part of the judgment providing for the recovery of punitive damages.
Plaintiff's wife made inquiry of defendant as to the cost of moving plaintiff's mobile home from Hermiston, Oregon to Mt. Vernon, Oregon. In her conversation with defendant's agent, plaintiff's wife asked if the house could be moved over Highway 395. She was informed that Highway 395 was not approved by the Public Utility Commissioner for the movement of mobile homes and that a permit for that purpose could not be obtained. It was then agreed that the house would be moved over a route which was more circuitous than Highway 395.
The evidence establishes that permits for the transportation of mobile homes are issued by the State Highway Commission and not by the Public Utility Commissioner. A few days after plaintiff had agreed to pay for the more circuitous route, defendant's agent called plaintiff and represented that another route even more circuitous than the one agreed upon would have to be taken. Plaintiff agreed to pay the additional charge for transporting the mobile home over this latter route. Defendant moved the home over a shorter route than the one finally agreed upon but charged plaintiff for the longer route.
The jury could have found from the evidence that defendant knowingly made misrepresentations with respect to the availability of routes for the movement of the mobile home. In effect, defendant concedes this is not appealing from the judgment imposing compensatory damages. However, defendant contends that there is no ground for imposing punitive damages.
We are of the opinion that there is ground for the imposition of punitive damages. The evidence reveals a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Wilson
...(1980). Such damages are awarded ordinarily for "a grievous violation of societal interests." Id. Compare Allen v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc., 273 Or. 614, 616, 542 P.2d 896 (1975) (no award of punitive damages), with Star Credit Corp. v. Ingram, 75 Misc.2d 299, 302, 347 N.Y.S.2d 651 (N.Y.Civ.......
-
Wardlow v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc.
...courts have approved ratios of 3.9:1 between the punitive damage award and the economic damage award. See Allen v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. , 273 Or. 614, 615–16, 542 P.2d 896 (1975). I find that applying a ratio of 3.9:1 is appropriate here though Oregon Courts have approved awards involvin......
-
Crooks v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 76-6677
...to support plaintiff; however, the issue was not presented or decided in that case. The defendant asserts that Allen v. Morgan Drive Away, 273 Or. 614, 542 P.2d 896 (1975), an action brought pursuant to the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, held contrary to plaintiff's contention. We did write ......
-
Kabatoff v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 78-2717
... ... Tenneco, Inc., 615 F.2d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 1980). As to the $20,000 ... ...