Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.

Decision Date07 October 1999
Citation987 P.2d 476,329 Or. 369
PartiesJohn LAKIN and Ann Marie Lakin, husband and wife, Respondents on Review, v. SENCO PRODUCTS, INC., an Ohio corporation, Petitioner on Review, and Western Supply Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, dba Western Tool Supply, Defendant.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

M. Elizabeth Duncan, of Greene & Markley, P.C., Portland, submitted the motion for clarification for petitioner on review.

Kathryn H. Clarke, Maureen Leonard, and William A. Gaylord, Portland, submitted the response to the motion for clarification for respondents on review.

Before CARSON, Chief Justice, and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, DURHAM, and KULONGOSKI, Justices.1

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

John Lakin and Ann Marie Lakin (plaintiffs) brought an action at law against defendant Senco Products, Inc. (Senco) seeking economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages for personal injury and loss of consortium arising out of allegations of negligent failure to warn and strict products liability. The jury returned a special verdict finding Senco liable. The jury's award included $2,000,000 in noneconomic damages to John Lakin and $876,000 in noneconomic damages to Ann Marie Lakin.

The trial court applied ORS 18.560(1) to limit the noneconomic damages award to each plaintiff to $500,000 and then reduced that amount by the jury's finding that John Lakin had contributed five percent to his injuries. As a result of the application of the statutory "cap" on noneconomic damages and the five-percent reduction for contributory negligence, plaintiffs each received judgment for $475,000 in noneconomic damages.2

In Lakin v. Senco Products Inc., 329 Or. 62, 67, 987 P.2d 463 (1999), this court held that ORS 18.560(1), the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, violates Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution. Accordingly, this court reversed the trial court's judgment in part and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The effect of that remand will be to reinstate the jury's full award of noneconomic damages.

The parties seek clarification of the date from which legal interest should accrue on the full amount of noneconomic damages awarded by the jury. For the reasons that follow, we hold that legal interest on the increased award of noneconomic damages begins to accrue from the date when the trial court entered judgment.

Senco argues that, where a judgment is increased on appeal, interest on the amount set out in the trial court's judgment begins to accrue on the date of that judgment, but that interest on the additional amount resulting from the appellate court's decision begins to accrue only on the date of entry of the modified or supplemental judgment. Senco further argues that its proposed rule is consistent with the plain wording of Oregon's interest statute, ORS 82.010(2)(a), which provides: "Interest on a judgment under this subsection accrues from the date of the entry of the judgment unless the judgment specifies another date." Senco asserts that interest on the increased award in noneconomic damages of $1,782,200 in this case has yet to be entered in a judgment and, therefore, interest on that increase should not begin to accrue until the modified judgment is entered by the circuit court. Plaintiffs argue that interest should begin to accrue on the additional amount as of the date when the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. We agree with plaintiffs.

In Compton v. Hammond Lumber Co., 153 Or. 546, 55 P.2d 21, 58 P.2d 546 (1936), the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on his claims of negligence and maintenance. This court reduced the maintenance judgment on the ground that a certain instruction affecting only the maintenance claim was erroneous and directed the trial court to enter judgment for the reduced amount. Id. at 564, 55 P.2d 21. On the plaintiff's motion for correction or modification of the mandate which followed, this court held that only the claim that was not modified accrued interest from the date of the trial court's judgment. The modification of the judgment required that interest on the maintenance claim would not begin to accrue until this court determined the proper amount on the judgment. This court said: "[T]he amount of the judgment did not become due until this court had determined the same." Compton v. Hammond Lumber Co., 154 Or. 650, 652, 61 P.2d 1257 (1936). Thus, under Compton, a modification of the maintenance judgment postponed the accrual of interest on that claim until a final decision on appeal.

In Pearson v. Schmitt, 260 Or. 607, 610, 492 P.2d 269 (1971), however, this court overruled Compton. In Pearson, the plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries due to the defendant's negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,239.50. On appeal, the plaintiff's recovery was reduced by $4,900. Pearson v. Schmitt, 259 Or. 439, 487 P.2d 84 (1971). In its decision on plaintiff's motion to recall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Lawson v. Hoke
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2003
    ...in other contexts are instructive. In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 62, 82, 987 P.2d 463,clarified on recons., 329 Or. 369, 987 P.2d 476 (1999), the court held that "Article I, section 17, guarantees a jury trial in civil actions for which the common law provided a jury trial when ......
  • Phillips v. Mirac, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 7, 2002
    ...and voluntarily by the parties. 10. See also Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 62, 78-82, 987 P.2d 463 (1999), amended 329 Or. 369, 987 P.2d 476 (1999), and Smith v. Dep't of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080, 1088-1089 (Fla., 1987), for additional authority supporting my position ...
  • Fields v. Legacy Health System
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 22, 2005
    ...47 P.3d at 479-82; Smothers, 23 P.3d at 358; Lakin v. Senco Prods., Inc., 329 Or. 62, 987 P.2d 463, 472(Or.), op. clarified by 329 Or. 369, 987 P.2d 476 (1999); Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 323 Or. 618, 919 P.2d 474, 479 (1996); Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or. 281, 906 P.2d 789, 796 (1995); H......
  • Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 2017
    ...We based our decision on the controlling precedent of Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc. , 329 Or. 62, 987 P.2d 463, clarified , 329 Or. 369, 987 P.2d 476 (1999). One day after we issued our decision in Vasquez , the Supreme Court issued its decision in Horton v. OHSU , 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §6.3 CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
    • United States
    • Oregon Constitutional Law (OSBar) Chapter 6 Right To Jury Trial
    • Invalid date
    ...Car, 120 Or 254, 263, 251 P 701 (1926); see Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 69, 78, 82, 987 P2d 463, clarified, 329 Or 369, 987 P2d 476 (1999). §6.3-1(c) Two Constitutional Provisions Together In determining whether a claim allows for a jury trial, Article I, section 17, often is ......
  • Chapter §1.4 INTERPRETATION
    • United States
    • Oregon Constitutional Law (OSBar) Chapter 1 Constitutionalism
    • Invalid date
    ...of what the framers would have intended. See, e.g., Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 69, 987 P2d 463, clarified, 329 Or 369, 987 P2d 476 (1999) ("[W]hatever the right to a jury trial in a civil case meant in 1857, it has the same meaning today."); State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395, 401,......
  • Chapter § 6.3
    • United States
    • Oregon Constitutional Law (2022 ed.) (OSBar) Chapter 6 Right To Jury Trial
    • Invalid date
    ...177. That decision was based on the common law in 1857 and Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 987 P2d 463, clarified, 329 Or 369, 987 P2d 476 (1999), overruled by Horton, 359 Or at 250. NOTE: Shortly after Klutschkowski, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned Lakin's holding on damages ......
  • Chapter § 1.4
    • United States
    • Oregon Constitutional Law (2022 ed.) (OSBar) Chapter 1 Constitutionalism
    • Invalid date
    ...of what the framers would have intended. See, e.g., Lakin v. Senco Products., Inc., 329 Or 62, 69, 987 P2d 463, clarified, 329 Or 369, 987 P2d 476 (1999), overruled by Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University, 359 Or 168, 208-16, 376 P3d 998 (2016) ("whatever the right to a jury trial i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT