PacifiCorp has asked the court to throw out a $90 million verdict in a wildfire lawsuit, claiming the jury’s decision was not supported by the evidence or the law.
In a motion filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court Aug. 11, the company asked the court to overturn the verdict in James et al vs. PacifiCorp, rendered in June after a six-week trial.
The filing claims the jury’s decision was based on insufficient evidence, and that there was no legal basis to award non-economic or punitive damages.
It further argues there are grounds for a new trial based on allegedly improper rulings by Judge Steffan Alexander regarding evidence and testimony.
As of press time plaintiffs had yet to file a response to the motion, and a hearing to argue the matter was not scheduled. A status check hearing was set for Friday, Sept. 1, to discuss pending matters in general.
A jury ruled June 12 that PacifiCorp negligently caused the Santiam, 242, Echo Mountain and Obenchain fires when its equipment was damaged during a historic windstorm on Labor Day 2020. It awarded 17 named plaintiffs $4.4 million in economic damages, $67.5 million in non-economic damages and $18 million in punitive damages.
A second phase of the trial to determine individual damages for roughly 5,000 remaining class members is still pending. Plaintiffs want Phase II to begin in October. PacifiCorp has filed a motion to halt proceedings until its motion challenging the verdict is resolved.
In its Aug. 11 motion, PacifiCorp argued the verdict should be thrown out due to insufficient evidence, claiming witness testimony was largely circumstantial.
During the trial, plaintiff attorneys argued there was a lack of direct evidence because PacifiCorp destroyed or concealed vital documentation and coerced potential witnesses.
Alexander ruled evidence of this misconduct would be allowed during trial after finding PacifiCorp had repeatedly violated orders to comply with evidentiary laws.
PacifiCorp said in its motion that plaintiffs’ argument of guilt by lack of evidence was still a lack of evidence and the jury could not legally find the company liable.
It also said there was evidence of multiple ignition sources unrelated to PacifiCorp equipment, particularly in the Santiam Canyon where the Beachie Creek fire was burning before the windstorm. These were additional grounds, they argued, to invalidate the verdict.
PacifiCorp also argued non-economic damages were not allowed under a state law governing wildfire lawsuits. It said the law allows only for economic damages for property lost in wildfires, and does not make exceptions in findings of negligence.
Additionally the company argued there were no grounds for punitive damages, which may be awarded if a defendant was reckless or created an unreasonable risk of harm. PacifiCorp said its response to the storm followed state law and industry standards, and the burden of proof for punitive damages was not met.
PacifiCorp has asked Alexander to set aside the jury’s verdict and rule in the company’s favor, or to set a new trial.
The company claimed the judge should not have allowed evidence that it was failing to mitigate trees near its power lines prior to the fires and had ample resources to fund tree mitigation.
The filing said Alexander should have allowed the company to rebut claims that it destroyed evidence and coerced witnesses, which it was barred from doing.
PacifiCorp said repeated references by witnesses to fatalities from the fires were grounds for a mistrial, as these were not a subject of the lawsuit and likely prejudiced the jury. Five people died from the Santiam Fire, while four others died in unrelated fires elsewhere in Oregon that Labor Day.
