Does a Jury Verdict Need to Be Unanimous in an Oregon Personal Injury Lawsuit?

While most Oregon personal injury cases are settled out of court, some go to a jury trial. And one thing that you may not realize is that in Oregon, a civil jury does not have to render a unanimous verdict. In fact, the Oregon Constitution expressly states, “In civil cases three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.” This means that if a jury of 12 persons hears a personal injury lawsuit, only 9 of them need to agree on the verdict.

Does It Have to Be the “Same Nine” Jurors?

This three-fourths rule can create issues, however, if the jury needs to decide multiple issues related to a case. For example, in a personal injury lawsuit the plaintiff typically requests both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages reflect their out-of-pocket financial losses, such as past and future medical bills. Non-economic damages address losses that are more difficult to precisely quantify, such as pain and suffering or emotional trauma arising from the accident.

So what happens when there are differing votes within the jury on these issues? Put differently, do the “same nine” jurors have to agree on the amounts of economic and non-economic damages? In a 2014 decision, Kennedy v. Wheeler, the Oregon Supreme Court held that nine jurors must “agree on each of its written findings and that those findings be logically consistent.” But the same nine jurors did not necessarily have to agree on two different categories of damages.

In the Kennedy case, which involved liability and damages for a car accident, all 12 jurors agreed the defendant was negligent. But only 10 jurors agreed on how much to award in economic damages, 9 agreed on non-economic damages, and only 8 agreed on both. Still, the Supreme Court said the verdict was valid since at least nine jurors agreed on each specific type of damages.

More recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a personal injury verdict in another car accident case, Breeden v. Tyson, where the defendant admitted fault for the accident and the jury only had to decide the issue of damages. Here, all 12 jurors agreed on the amount of compensation for the plaintiff’s future medical expenses, while 9 agreed on compensation for past medical expenses and non-economic damages. Furthermore, the same nine jurors agreed on those two latter awards.

The plaintiff actually appealed this verdict, arguing the trial judge should have told the jury the “same nine” jurors did not have to agree on both past and future medical expenses. The judge instructed the jury otherwise. The Court of Appeals held that even if this instruction was mistaken, there was “little likelihood” the error affected the jury’s verdict.

Contact a Portland Car Accident Lawyer Today

If you were recently injured in a car accident, you will likely have many questions about the legal process for seeking compensation from the at-fault driver. Our Portland car accident attorneys are here to answer those questions and offer you quality legal representation. Contact Rosenbaum Law Group, PC, today at 503-288-8000 to schedule a free consultation.

Sources:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15137865079228357022

cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/39547/rec/