April 8 - An Oregon Court of Appeals in Salem issued a ruling on Wednesday that favors PacifiCorp in ongoing litigation related to a series of wildfires that burned in Oregon in 2020. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge made an error by permitting the case to move forward under class-action assumptions.
The decision centers on the propriety of instructing jurors they could "assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members." The appeals court determined that this instruction was erroneous and that the error was prejudicial to PacifiCorp, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway.
PacifiCorp has estimated that its overall liability tied to the litigation could reach tens of billions of dollars. The appellate ruling could reduce the utility's collective exposure by removing or narrowing the class-action framework that plaintiffs sought to use to consolidate claims.
Thousands of Oregon residents and business owners have accused PacifiCorp of causing several wildfires by allegedly failing to shut off power lines during a Labor Day weekend windstorm in 2020. PacifiCorp has denied those allegations.
Following the appeals court's decision, lawyers for the fire victims did not immediately respond to requests for comment. PacifiCorp likewise did not immediately reply to similar inquiries.
The appellate finding does not resolve the underlying factual disputes about the causes of the 2020 fires. Instead, it addresses a legal question about how evidence may be applied across a group of plaintiffs in the litigation process. As a consequence, the ruling may affect how liability is allocated and how the remaining litigation proceeds, though further proceedings and rulings will determine the case's ultimate scope.
Context and implications
The appeals court ruling challenges a procedural element that had allowed plaintiffs to advance the litigation as a class action. By rejecting the trial judge's instruction to jurors that trial evidence could be treated as applying to all class members, the court has narrowed the procedural path available to the plaintiffs. How this narrows potential damages or changes litigation strategy will depend on subsequent court actions and any additional rulings.