Jean Marie Howell v. CHRISTOPHER DAVID BOYLE and CITY OF BEAVERTON

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN MARIE HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAVID BOYLE and
CITY OF BEAVERTON,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 09-36153
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00727-KI
MEMORANDUM*
JEAN MARIE HOWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAVID BOYLE and
CITY OF BEAVERTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35038
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00727-KI
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding
FILED
JAN 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the**
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
2
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.**
In No. 09-36153, Appellants Boyle and the City of Beaverton argue that the
district court erred when it ruled that the statutory damages cap in the Oregon Tort
Claims Act, Or. Rev. Stat. section 30.270(1) (2007), repealed by Or. Laws 2009, c.
67, § 20, was unconstitutional as applied to this case and awarded Howell damages
in excess of half a million dollars. In No. 10-35038, Howell cross-appealed and
argues that the district court erroneously interpreted Or. Rev. Stat. section 801.220
when it approved jury instructions stating that an unmarked crosswalk extended
diagonally across a highway and admitted a trial exhibit so depicting the location
of the crosswalk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in
No. 10-25038. In a separate order filed concurrently with this memorandum, we
certified to the Oregon Supreme Court several state constitutional questions, and
we withdrew that appeal from submission pending certification.
Section 801.220 states that an unmarked crosswalk extends across a roadway
along “[t]he prolongation of the lateral lines of the sidewalk” to the sidewalk on the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
opposite side of the street. The district court ruled that the unmarked crosswalk in
this case extended across the highway at the same angle that the intersecting
sidewalk approached the highway. We interpret the statute as would the Oregon
Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood of Id., Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 930
(9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the district court’s ruling was consistent with
the unambiguous text of section 801.220, which locates the unmarked crosswalk in
the area bounded by lines extending from the lateral lines of the intersecting
sidewalk. See State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042, 1050-51 (Or. 2009) (adopting a
three step process for statutory interpretation beginning with an examination of the
text and context of the statute). The district court did not err in its interpretation of
section 801.220.
AFFIRMED.
No petition for rehearing shall be filed and the mandate shall not issue until
the court files a disposition in No. 09-36153.

-- 3 of 3 --