Trebelhorn v. Prime Wimbledon SPE, LLC, 372 Or. 27 (2024), is a premises liability case where a tenant at an apartment complex alleged he was injured when a concrete walkway gave way beneath him, causing a meniscal tear that required surgery. He sued the landlord, seeking $45,000 in economic damages and $350,000 in noneconomic damages. The landlord admitted negligence but disputed damages. The tenant conducted extensive discovery and sought to portray the landlord as a slumlord who chose not to fix known problems at the complex. The plaintiff sought punitive damages at trial and the trial court allowed the request to go to the jury.

The jury awarded the full economic damages, $250,000 in noneconomic damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. After hearing post-trial motions, the trial court concluded the maximum constitutionally permissible ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages was nine times the actual damages the jury awarded. The $10,000,000 punitive damages award was reduced to $2,660,373.54. Both sides appealed.

Oregon’s Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. It extensively examined the factual record as applied to its case law concerning the difficult task of assessing when a punitive damages award is constitutionally problematic. Ultimately, it concluded the tenant had not met his burden to allow the original $10,000,000 award and its 33:1 ratio to stand. The 33:1 ratio “is dramatically greater than the single-digit ratio that the [United States] Supreme Court has suggested is – except in extraordinary circumstances – the limit of what due process will permit, no matter what the tort.”

The court reiterated that determining the proper ratio is not a simple mathematical exercise and other ratios might be proper in other cases. “Although we do not rule out the possibility that some amount greater than (or less than) a 9:1 ratio might be the maximum constitutionally permitted award in a case like this,” it was a constitutionally permissible ratio here.