This text explains the different standards of proof in Oregon law. The lowest standard is "preponderance of the evidence" which is used in most civil cases. The middle standard is "clear and convincing evidence" which requires more evidence than the previous one and is often used in cases involving serious consequences. The highest standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in criminal cases and requires the prosecution to prove its case to such a degree that there can be no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person.
Read MoreThe blog post discusses an important Oregon court case that addressed the issue of social host liquor liability under the state's Dram Shop statute, ORS 471.565. The case involved a party host who was sued by a guest who was killed when two guests engaged in horseplay with loaded handguns, resulting in one guest being killed.
Read MorePublic stores have a legal responsibility to maintain their premises in a safe manner. Neglecting this responsibility can lead to serious consequences, such as being held liable for injuries or damages caused by hazardous conditions. Understanding the legal liabilities of public stores is essential.
Read MorePacific Injury Law Firm explores the complexities surrounding the concept of permanent injury in personal injury law as unpacked by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Elan v. Tate. This case is a cautionary tale for legal practitioners and individuals involved in personal injury disputes and why substantial evidence is necessary to establish a claim of permanent injury.
Read MoreIn the landmark case of Scott Raymond Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases was unconstitutional. This decision significantly affects individuals seeking fair compensation for pain, suffering, and life-altering injuries.
Read MoreIn a landmark 2022 decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals bolstered policyholder protections in *Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union*, affirming that insurance companies must act in good faith and comply with statutory standards. This ruling makes clear that insurers can be held accountable for emotional distress damages when they fail to properly investigate or settle claims, marking a significant advancement in personal injury law and consumer rights in Oregon.
Read More