Hale v. Port of Portland

[89 OrApp Page 211] Plaintiff suffered severe physical injuries in an accident that occurred on November 3, 1980.1 Through his guardian ad litem, he filed this action for personal injuries against several defendants, including the City of Portland (City) and Port of Portland (Port), alleging general and special damages of 4.5 million dollars. After the court granted the motions of City and Port to strike the claim for damages in excess of $100,000 pursuant to ORS 30.270(1)(b), a part of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), City and Port confessed judgment for $100,000 each. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment,2 assigning error to the trial court's granting the motions to strike, arguing that the $100,000 limitation on recovery by individual claimants for torts committed by public bodies violates Article I, sections 10 and 20, of the Oregon Constitution and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.3 All of plaintiff's arguments are premised on the proposition that governmental immunity in Oregon is not of constitutional origin.