Accident Prevention Division v. Sunrise Seed Co.

554 P.2d 550, 26 Or. App. 879, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1850
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Accident Prevention Division v. Sunrise Seed Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 Or. App. 361
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided September 20, 1976·No. SH-75-107, CA 5908·Published

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

This case is before us again on the Accident Prevention Division’s petition for reconsideration.

The Division cited Sunrise Seed Company for a violation of the Oregon Safe Employment Act, ORS 654.001 to 654.295, and imposed a penalty of $175. Sunrise Seed sought and received a hearing before a referee pursuant to ORS 654.290, contending that the penalty was excessive. The referee ruled that the Division failed to prove the reasonableness of the penalty.

The Division appealed to this court. We held that generally one who initiates a proceeding has the burden of proving his contentions, and that therefore Sunrise Seed should have had the burden of proving the penalty to be unreasonable. Acc. Prev. Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 361, 552 P2d 558 (1976).

The Division’s petition for reconsideration cites an administrative regulation that allocates the burden of proving "the reasonableness of a contested proposed civil penalty” to the Division. OAR 436-85-635.1 No party had previously cited this regulation. No party now suggests any reason why this regulation, even though contrary to the prevailing general rule, is invalid.

Under OAR 436-85-635 the referee correctly assigned the burden of proof to the Division.

[882]*882The Division nevertheless contends in its petition for reconsideration that it satisfied its burden under the regulation. It argues that since the potential penalty was $1,275,2 a $175 penalty is reasonable as a matter of law.

We disagree. Reasonableness is not a bald arithmetic comparison; it necessarily depends upon the circumstances of the violation. Here the Division presented absolutely no evidence on the circumstances of the violation in question. While the penalty here imposed probably warranted only a modicum of proof, on such a record, which contains none at all, we cannot say the referee erred in ruling the Division failed to sustain its burden under OAR 436-85-635.

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Accident Prevention Division v. Sunrise Seed Co., 554 P.2d 550, 26 Or. App. 879, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1850 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

554 P.2d 550 (Accident Prevention Division v. Sunrise Seed Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Accident Prevention Division v. Sunrise Seed Co.
552 P.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1976)