Eugene Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys

Boating Education and Life Jacket Water Safety Laws

Several years ago, after our client died because his whitewater outfitter did not have the equipment or skills to save him, we took this case beyond the courtroom to help get better water safety laws passed.  These required outfitters to have better equipment and training to help prevent injuries and drowning deaths.

Still, a dozen Oregon boaters lost their lives in 2010, and 11 of those people were not wearing a life jacket. While water accidents happen for a variety of reasons, in 90 percent or more of the fatalities there was either improper use of life jackets, or no life jacket at all.  Appropriately, newer laws focus on life jackets.   Under current law, all adult passengers must  wear a Coast Guard-approved life jacket in Class III or higher white water. Children 12 years and under must always wear a life jacket when boating.

In addition, with the boating and water recreation season here again, it’s good to keep in mind that Oregon’s mandatory boater education requirements are now fully phased in:

• Youth 12 and over operating any size powerboat must obtain and carry a boater education card.
• All Oregon residents operating a power boat greater than 10 horsepower must carry a boater education card.
• Children 11 years and under may not operate any power boat.

There are special rules for youths between 12 and 15 years of age, and exceptions to these requirements.

$2.125 Million Premises Liability Trial Result Affirmed

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently affirmed the jury verdict in Matson v. Oregon Arena Corporation, a Multnomah County case we tried with co-counsel Phil Gilbert.

Tammy Matson was attending a Trail Blazers basketball game.  She was seriously injured when she fell approximately 40 feet from a bench-like platform on the 300-level smokers lounge that did not have the warning signs that were posted for the other levels. Our case was against Oregon Arena Corporation [OAC], which owned and managed the Rose Garden, and Coast to Coast Event Services, which provided crowd management and security services for OAC. In our pleadings, we alleged that Coast to Coast was OAC’s agent, which OAC admitted at trial.  OAC alleged that Ms. Matson was comparatively negligent.

Because we settled with Coast to Coast shortly before trial, we proposed a jury verdict form that had OAC, Coast to Coast, OAC, and Tammy Matson listed as potentially at-fault parties.  Defendant objected to that jury verdict form and persuaded the trial judge to use a verdict form that listed only OAC and Ms. Matson. This was presumably a tactical decision by the defense: keeping one at-fault party off the verdict form could increase the percentage of fault attributed to Ms. Matson. The tactic almost worked: the jury, although it returned a $4.25 million verdict, found the plaintiff 50% at fault, which reduced the judgment to $2.125 million.

On appeal, Defendant assigned as error the trial court’s granting of Plaintiff’s motion in limine excluding evidence that Coast to Coast was a former party. Defendant also appealed the giving of the instruction that Coast to Coast was an agent of OAC and therefore any negligence of Coast to Coast was the negligence of OAC.

The Court of Appeals examined Plaintiff’s pleading of agency and reiterated OAC’s concession that Coast to Coast was its agent and that customer safety at the Rose Garden was a non-delegeable duty.  The Matson court held that in light of the judge’s instruction that the jury was to decide only the issues framed by the pleadings, the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that OAC was responsible for “any” negligence of Coast to Coast.

To see the full Matson opinion, click here.

Confidential Settlement: Medical Negligence

Bend attorney Neil Bryant referred a case to our office involving the unexpected death of a man following routine back surgery.

The patient was an active older man who was taking beta blockers because of his  history of cardiovascular disease.  Because of recent acute back pain, he was scheduled for a day procedure at a local surgery center to have a microdiscectomy.  An endotracheal tube was used during surgery to keep the airways open.

As the patient was regaining consciousness, the anesthesiologist decided to administer lidocaine, a local anesthetic, for comfort during extubation.  The anesthesiologist administered a large dose of lidocaine intravenously.  Within two minutes, the patient went into cardiac arrest.  Resuscitation efforts later established a heart rhythm but he was unable to breathe spontaneously.  The patient was transferred to a hospital where he was diagnosed with a severe brain injury from the lack of oxygen when his heart was not beating.  He died nine days later.

Lidocaine has well-known cardiac effects.  According to information the manufacturer makes available to physicians, when not contraindicated, the usual dose is 50 mg to 100 mg administered under careful monitoring.  If used at all, the IV dose of lidocaine should be reduced for older patients, patients with compromised cardiovascular function, and in particular, people on beta blockers, who are at higher risk for lidocaine toxicity.  Even in healthy patients, lidocaine should never be administered intravenously at a dose greater than 100 mg.  Here, the anesthesiologist gave a 240 mg dose.

Our office submitted a package of information to the anesthesiologist’s liability insurer that included a video presentation of interviews with the deceased man’s friends, families, and colleagues.    Unusual here was the fact that the settlement occurred through direct negotiations with the insurance company and its counsel before any court filing.  Our case settled for a confidential amount.