Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Christian Rivas-Del Toro is a Mexican citizen who was residing and working in the United States illegally. In the summer of 2005, he began working as a truck driver for co-defendants Willard, Michael, and Douglas Cranney, who are collectively called "Cranney Farms," the name under which they did business. When he began work for Cranney Farms, Defendant had a valid Mexican chauffeur license. While driving a farm truck, Defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and struck another vehicle in an intersection. He contended that the trailer brakes malfunctioned. Plaintiff Beatriz Nava was driving the other vehicle, and her minor daughter was a passenger. She filed this action seeking to recover for property damage and personal injuries to herself and her daughter. In her amended complaint, she alleged that Cranney Farms was liable because it was the registered owner of the truck and Defendant was driving with Cranney Farms’s permission and that Cranney Farms had recklessly allowed the vehicle to become unsafe to operate. Cranney Farms moved for summary judgment on the ground that pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1607 it was not liable for the negligence of its employee because he was outside the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. After the motion was briefed and argued, the district court held that because Defendant chose a longer route in order to avoid law enforcement because he was in the country illegally, Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Idaho Code section 6-1607(2). It ordered that Cranney Farms was entitled to a judgment dismissing the action as to it. Plaintiffs and Defendant moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. It entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice as to Cranney Farms, and it certified that judgment as final pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Plaintiffs appealed and Defendant cross-appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the burden never shifted to Plaintiffs to provide evidence regarding their claim of negligent maintenance, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on that claim. Furthermore, the Court found that the ground upon which the trial court dismissed the action against the owners (that Defendant was an employee and was outside the course and scope of his employment) was not a defense to the claims alleged in the complaint, the Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Nava v. Rivas-Del Toro" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court was an order of the district court which held that the statute making peer review records privileged applied to a lawsuit brought by a doctor who claimed that a hospital acted in bad faith by refusing to renew a his attending privileges. After a series of reviews of Physician Petitioner Joseph Verska, M.D.'s (Physician) practice initiated in 2004 by St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center (Hospital) and again in 2006 and 2007, Physician requested a hearing before a Fair Hearing Panel in 2008. In 2009, Physician and the Spine Institute of Idaho (a professional corporation he created) sued the Hospital and two of its doctors (Defendants) alleging that Defendants conspired to wrongfully harm them, intentionally and/or negligently interfered with their economic advantage, interfered with Physician’s prospective contractual relations and business expectations, defamed them, and intentionally and/or negligently inflicted emotional distress upon Physician. In addition to damages, Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring Hospital to restore Physician’s privileges. During this litigation, Plaintiffs initiated discovery related to the process, activities, and decisions that led to Hospital’s decision to deny Physician’s application to be reappointed to the medical staff and to have his privileges renewed. Hospital objected on the ground that such information was protected by the peer review privilege. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to compel discovery, and Defendants sought a motion for a protective order. The district court denied the motion to compel and granted the protective order. The Supreme Court found the peer review statute unambiguous: "the statute states that 'all peer review records shall be confidential and privileged'" not subject to subpoena or discovery proceedings or be admitted as evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Physician's motion to compel the records' discovery. View "Verska v. St. Alphonsus Regional Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Claimant David Tarbet worked for Employer J.R. Simplot Company for thirty-six years until an accident in 2007 left him totally and permanently disabled. The issue before the Industrial Commission (Commission) was whether Employer was liable for all or only a part of Claimant’s income benefits. If Claimant’s total disability resulted solely from the last accident, Employer would be liable for all of the income benefits. If his total disability resulted from the combined effects of both that injury and impairments that pre-existed that injury, then Employer was liable only for that portion of the income benefits for the disability caused by the accident, and the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) would be liable for the remainder. The Industrial Commission found that the April 2007 accident was Claimant’s final industrial accident, that he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of the final accident, and that the impairments that existed prior to that accident did not contribute to his total disability. It found that ISIF was not liable for Claimant’s benefits and dismissed the complaint against it. Employer then appealed. Upon review of the Commission's record, the Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's order. View "Tarbet v. J.R. Simplot Co. " on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal from a jury verdict entered in a wrongful death case in favor of Jose Aguilar, Guadalupe Aguilar, Alejandro Aguilar, Lorena Aguilar and Jose Aguilar, Jr. (collectively, "the Aguilars") against Dr. Nathan Coonrod, his employer Primary Health Care Center (Primary Health) and employees of Primary Health. On appeal Dr. Coonrod asserted that the district court abused its discretion in barring him from questioning the Aguilars' expert about his opinion as to the professional negligence of Dr. Chai and Dr. Long (two previous defendants who settled or were dismissed prior to trial) in their treatment of the decedent Maria Aguilar either on cross-examination or during his case in chief. Dr. Coonrod alleged that the district court also abused its discretion in forbidding him to read portions of Dr. Blaylock’s deposition into the record. Finally, Dr. Coonrod alleged that the district court erred in interpreting the statutory cap on non-economic damages as applying to each of the Aguilars individually instead of collectively. Upon review, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Dr. Coonrod's motion for a new trial, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring Dr. Coonrod from questioning the expert on the issue of the purported negligence of Drs. Chai and Long. Dr. Coonrod failed to properly disclose Dr. Blaylock as an expert he intended to call, and was thus barred from calling him during his case in chief. Furthermore, the Court held that the district court correctly found that the statutory limitation on noneconomic damages applied on a per claimant basis, rather than a per claim basis. View "Aguilar, Jr. v. Coonrod" on Justia Law

Do Nguyen, Jana Nguyen, Kenny Nguyen and John Doe’s (collectively "the Nguyens") appealed a district court's grant of a motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of Janice Maynard. On appeal, Maynard contended that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside its previously entered default judgment. In 2006, Maynard filled out an application to rent a trailer home from the Nguyens and reached an agreement with the Nguyens under which Maynard would receive title to the home if she paid $500 in rent each month for a period of three years. In 2008, Maynard reported to the Ada County Jail to serve a sentence, and when she returned home on November 27, 2008, she discovered that the Nguyens had removed her belongings from the trailer home and rented the trailer to other tenants. In 2009, an evidentiary hearing was held on the issue of damages. At the beginning of that hearing Maynard’s attorney told the court that he had received a two-page letter on June 29, 2009, which was addressed to "[counsel for Maynard], Janice Maynard and To Whom it May Concern." Counsel asked whether the court had received that letter, and described various documents which were attached to it. When the court said that it had not received the letter, the attorney offered no further information concerning the letter’s contents, but proceeded to present evidence concerning damages. The district court entered a default judgment against the Nguyens in the amount of $3,265 in actual damages and an enhanced penalty of $15,000 for the ICPA violation. The Nguyens filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The Nguyens noted that they had sent Maynard’s attorney a letter explaining their version of events and why they believed that Maynard had abandoned the trailer home. On December 7, 2009, the district court granted the Nguyens’ motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that the Nguyens had demonstrated that there were unique and compelling circumstances justifying relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order setting aside the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Maynard v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Randy Hoffer challenged the district court's dismissal of three of his five tort claims against the City of Boise (City). Of two in particular, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims of tortious interference with a contract and defamation against the City because it held as a matter of law that under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), a governmental entity could not be held liable for the torts of its employees when a complainant alleges malice and/or criminal intent. Upon review of the applicable legal authority and the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the ITCA indeed exempted governmental entities from liability for the intentional torts at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. View "Hoffer v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Janet Nightengale brought a medical malpractice action against emergency room doctor Defendant Dr. Kevin Timmel. Defendant failed to diagnose a clot in one Plaintiff's vascular arteries. That condition cut off circulation to Plaintiff's left arm, eventually requiring its amputation above the elbow. At trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding that Defendant had not breached the relevant standard of care in his treatment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff contended on appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the special verdict. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision in support of Defendant. View "Nightengale v. Timmel" on Justia Law

Appellant Twin Lakes Canal Company (Twin Lakes) owned a reservoir. Respondents Warren and Sessilee Choules own property subject to a "prescriptive overflow" easement by Twin Lakes. In 2008, Twin Lakes filed suit against the Choules, alleging that the Choules moved earth, rocks, concrete and other debris from elsewhere on their property into areas below the height of the reservoir, which reduced the reservoir's storage space and damaged a lining designed to prevent leaks. The district court determined that state law allows the Choules as owners of the servient property, to use their property in any way they see fit, despite the common law rule that generally prohibits them from using their property in a way that interferes with the "dominant estate." The district court dismissed Twin Lakes' complaint. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Twin Lakes argued that the district court misinterpreted state law in its ruling in favor of the Choules. Upon careful consideration of the plain meaning of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Twin Lakes Canal Co. v. Choules" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Eileen McDevitt tripped and fell on a recessed irrigation box outside Sportsman's Warehouse. The store was part of a larger shopping center. Plaintiff sued the store and others to recover for her injuries. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the store, finding that as a tenant in the shopping center, the store owed no duty to shoppers (or invitees) to warn them of potential hazards. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "McDevitt v. Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Lesia Knowlton appealed the Industrial Commission's determination that she was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Appellant was employed as a secretary at Respondent Wood River Medical Center. In 2000, Appellant was working at her assigned station when a drain in a nearby patient's bathroom became clogged. One of the maintenance workers used a chemical cleaner to clear the drain. The chemical produced a foul odor. Workers placed fans at the doorway of the room for ventilation. The air blew past Appellant's station from morning until her shift ended in the afternoon. That night, Appellant developed a cough and body aches. Her symptoms persisted, allegedly from exposure to the chemical drain cleaner. Over the course of five years, Appellant visited multiple doctors and specialists to treat her "bronchitis-like" symptoms. Appellant filed a complaint with the Industrial Commission seeking reimbursement for her medical expenses and for temporary total disability benefits. At a Commission hearing, the referee ultimately concluded that Appellant failed to demonstrate that her medical symptoms were causally related to the chemical exposure. Although the referee determined that Appellant was not entitled to "time loss" benefits or any form of disability benefits, he did find that because the medical treatment Appellant received during the six weeks following the incident was a "reasonable precautionary step" taken in response to the exposure, she was entitled to compensation for those expenses. The Commission adopted the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Commission denied Appellant's motion for reconsideration. Subsequently Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed that Appellant failed to demonstrate her medical symptoms were related to the chemical exposure. Accordingly the Court affirmed the Commission's determination. View "Knowlton v. Wood River Medical Center" on Justia Law