Saechao v. Matsakoun
| Decision Date | 28 October 1986 |
| Citation | 302 Or. 155,727 P.2d 126 |
| Parties | Yoon Fou SAECHAO, Guardian Ad Litem for Kae Fou Saechao, Sou Fou Saechao, and Farm Fou Saechao, Petitioner on Review, v. Khamchana MATSAKOUN and Thon Boupha, Respondents on Review. TC A8406-03428, CA A34147, SC S32866. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
On Review from the Court of Appeals. *
Stephen C. Hendricks, Portland, filed the petition for review for petitioner on review.
Robert E. Barton, of Cosgrove, Kester, Crowe, Gidley & Lagesen of Portland, appeared for respondent Thon Boupha.
Denny Z. Zikes of Zikes, Kayser, Freed, Smith & Held of Portland, appeared for respondent Khamchana Matsakoun.
The trial court entered a final judgment dismissing two of the three personal injury claims. The plaintiff guardian ad litem appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court in an in banc 6-4 decision. The Court of Appeals ruled in effect that emotional distress resulting from witnessing the death in an accident of a family member is compensable in a tort action only if there was a direct impact of the accident to the person suffering the emotional distress.
The plaintiff guardian ad litem petitioned for review. We allowed review. Before argument, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed with the clerk of this court a proposed "STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL."
Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this case, we dismiss the petition for review.
I agree that the petition for review must be dismissed. I note only that in another recent case, Banister Continental Corp. v. NW Pipeline Corp., 301 Or. 763, 724 P.2d 822 (1986), the disposition was expressly phrased as vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals when the case was settled and became moot while pending in this court.
That is the practice followed by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Department of Treasury v. Galioto, 477 U.S. ----, ----, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 459, 465 (1986); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-07, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). I think it is a better practice than to leave parties and lower courts to discover from a small signal in Shepard's Citations or a similar source that a precedent of the Court of Appeals was taken up for review by this court and then dismissed because some event rendered the case moot. Lacking a consistent practice in this court, lawyers and judges retain that burden.
I agree with the majority that the petition for review should be dismissed.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center
...recovery where plaintiff sustained no impact); Saechao v. Matsakoun, 78 Or.App. 340, 341 n. 1, 348, 717 P.2d 165, rev. dismissed 302 Or. 155, 727 P.2d 126 (1986) (same). Plaintiff asserts, however, that she, "not her husband--chose to use this service. In a contractual sense, [she] accepted......
-
Philibert v. Kluser
...that motion, applying the "impact rule" announced in Saechao v. Matsakoun , 78 Or.App. 340, 717 P.2d 165, rev. dismissed , 302 Or. 155, 727 P.2d 126 (1986), and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, also citing Saechao . Philibert , 274 Or.App. at 1......
-
Folz v. State
...provides clear relationship between compensability and the plaintiff's status as a victim of a breach of duty), rev. dismissed, 302 Or. 155, 727 P.2d 126 (1986). But see Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193, 195 n. 1 (Wyo.1986) (listing the numerous jurisdictions that have abolished the impact......
-
Simons v. Beard
...distress damages under the "physical impact" rule. See, e.g., Saechao v. Matsakoun, 78 Or.App. 340, 717 P.2d 165,rev. dismissed, 302 Or. 155, 727 P.2d 126 (1986).(3) Plaintiff's amended complaint failed to allege a legally sufficient claim for medical malpractice permitting the recovery of ......