Thomas v. Dillon Family Ltd. P'ship II
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | A172292 |
| Citation | 319 Or.App. 429,511 P.3d 43 |
| Parties | Tasheema THOMAS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DILLON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, an Oregon limited partnership; and Dillon Property Management LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jay W. Beattie, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. Also on the briefs was Lindsay Hart, LLP.
Willard E. Merkel, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Merkel & Associates.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
This appeal raises one legal issue: may a landlord raise the statutory affirmative defense of comparative fault, ORS 31.600, when a tenant alleges that her premises included an uninhabitable condition under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA) that caused her personal-injury damages? At several points both pretrial and during trial, the trial court prohibited defendant landlord from raising a comparative-fault defense because, it concluded, the ORLTA does not incorporate such a defense. The jury ultimately found for plaintiff tenant and awarded both economic and noneconomic damages. Landlord appeals from that judgment, raising several assignments of error that all rely on the argument that landlord had a right to raise a comparative-fault defense under the ORLTA. As we explain below, we agree with the trial court's legal conclusion that the ORLTA does not incorporate a comparative-fault defense. We therefore affirm.
With the exceptions noted below, the material facts of this case are largely undisputed, and the disputed facts are not significant to our resolution of the purely legal issue before us. We summarize and include only the basic facts necessary to give background to how the legal issue arose in the trial court.
Tenant leased an apartment unit within a duplex that was owned by defendant Dillon Family Limited Partnership II and managed by defendant Dillon Property Management, LLC (collectively, "landlord").1 At some point before July 22, 2017, the refrigerator in tenant's unit began to leak. Tenant mopped up puddles of water twice a day. The puddles sometimes extended into the living room, which was adjacent to the kitchen and not separated by a door.
Landlord became aware of the leaking refrigerator on July 22. Mr. and Mrs. Dillon, representatives for landlord, made an in-person inspection of the apartment on that day. Tenant testified that she understood that Mr. Dillon had fixed the problem on the day of the inspection. Landlord disputed that understanding. Mrs. Dillon testified that she informed tenant on that day that they had called an appliance company to come repair the problem. She also testified that she had advised tenant to clean up the water so that tenant would not fall. Mrs. Dillon described how her husband looked inside the freezer and then immediately went outside to call the appliance repair company to come service it.
On the evening of July 23, tenant was walking through her darkened apartment, headed through the living room and into the kitchen, when she slipped and fell. Tenant began to slip on water that had collected on the living room floor and continued slipping until she landed and stopped in the kitchen. Tenant fell onto her back, suffering injuries. The appliance company repaired the refrigerator at some point on or after July 24. Mrs. Dillon testified that she had attempted to reach tenant to let her know of the repair visit several times before tenant let the appliance repair company into the apartment. The repair person fixed a clogged freezer tube, resolving the leak.
Tenant filed a lawsuit against landlord alleging that it had failed to maintain the premises in a habitable condition as required by ORS 90.320, particularly by not maintaining the refrigerator. Tenant further alleged that, as a result of landlord's violations of that statute, tenant fell and sustained injuries to various parts of her spine, including sustaining herniated discs
, bruises, contusions, and other resulting symptoms. Tenant sought recovery of her medical expenses and noneconomic damages.
Landlord answered and asserted a comparative-fault defense, contending that any injuries sustained by tenant were caused by tenant's own negligence. After tenant filed a motion to strike pursuant to ORCP 21 E, the trial court struck landlord's comparative-fault defense. Later, landlord attempted to introduce the defense at trial by requesting the uniform civil jury instructions on comparative fault. Consistently with its prior ruling, the court refused to give those instructions. The court also, over landlord's objection, instructed the jury that they were "not to consider whether [tenant] was at fault, careless or negligent in causing her own accident." Finally, as it relates to the relevant rulings, the trial court granted tenant's motion in limine —again, over landlord's objection—to preclude landlord from offering evidence or argument concerning tenant's "fault, carelessness, or negligence" on the grounds that it was not relevant to liability and no longer relevant to any defense, after the court's earlier ruling striking the comparative-fault defense. As noted, the jury ultimately returned a verdict for tenant, awarding economic and noneconomic damages.
Landlord assigns error to each of the trial court's rulings summarized above. That is, landlord assigns error to the trial court's decision to strike its comparative-fault defense and to the trial court's resulting decisions to reject certain instructions, accept others, and exclude evidence and argument relating to tenant's potential comparative fault. Although landlord raises several assignments of error, we agree with landlord that each involve the same claimed legal error; namely, the trial court's legal decision that a landlord may not raise a comparative-fault defense to a tenant's ORLTA claim because comparative fault is not relevant to a landlord's potential liability or damages under that statute.
Accordingly, we review each of landlord's assignments of error to determine whether the trial court made a legal error. We note that when a trial court strikes an affirmative defense under ORCP 21 E(2), we generally review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Alfieri v. Solomon , 358 Or. 383, 391, 365 P.3d 99 (2015). However, where, as here, the court's exercise of that discretion turns on a legal question, we review for legal error. Id. Similarly, we review a trial court's jury instructions, and its failure to provide a jury instruction, for legal error. See State v. Gray , 261 Or. App. 121, 129, 322 P.3d 1094 (2014) (); State v. Reyes-Camarena , 330 Or. 431, 441, 7 P.3d 522 (2000) (). We similarly review a trial court's decision to exclude evidence as irrelevant for legal error. State v. Cunningham , 337 Or. 528, 536, 99 P.3d 271 (2004), cert. den. , 544 U.S. 931, 125 S.Ct. 1670, 161 L.Ed.2d 495 (2005).
As noted, the legal issue before us is whether the ORLTA, particularly ORS 90.360(2), permits a landlord to raise the comparative-fault defense in ORS 31.600(2) in response to a tenant's ORLTA claim that the landlord failed to maintain habitable premises and caused a tenant injury as a result. That is an issue of statutory construction to which we apply our customary rules of construction. See State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160, 171-72, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009). We first examine the text within the context of the statute, and then, as we determine necessary, we examine any legislative history that we consider helpful to the analysis, and, finally, if the legislature's intent is still not clear, we may resort to general maxims of statutory construction. Id.
We start with the relevant text of ORS 90.360(2) within the overall context of the ORLTA. ORS 90.360(2) provides:
In short, ORS 90.360(2) provides a tenant the right to damages and injunctive relief for a landlord's noncompliance with the habitability requirements in ORS 90.320. Perhaps most significant to our analysis, the subsection's limitation on recovery of damages is express and specific. It provides that "[e]xcept as provided in this chapter ," the tenant may recover damages for a landlord's noncompliance with, among other things, the habitability requirements in ORS 90.320. ORS 90.360(2) (emphasis added). We understand that plain text to provide that any limitations on the recovery of damages or injunctive relief must be found exclusively in ORS chapter 90—the ORLTA—and not outside of that chapter.
More importantly, we conclude that the specific provisions in ORS 90.360 express a legislative intent to not apply the traditional comparative-fault defense set forth in ORS 31.600. There are several express defenses and limitations on the recovery of damages found in the ORLTA. None of those defenses present the traditional comparative-fault defense set forth in ORS 31.600, nor do they incorporate that...
To continue reading
Request your trial