Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bryce Fuller walked into a gas station/convenience store owned and operated by Stinker Stores, Inc., with his golden retriever Darma. The dog had on a collar and leash, but Fuller was not holding the leash while he was at the counter making a purchase. At first, Fuller was standing facing the counter with the dog at his left side, but during the transaction, Fuller turned so that his right side was next to the counter. When he did so, the dog remained, sitting in front of Fuller and facing the counter. When Fuller went to complete his purchase, the dog raised up and put her front paws on the counter, and the cashier gave her a dog treat. The entire transaction took about two minutes, and during that time the dog, while sitting in front of Fuller, raised up and put her front paws on the counter six other times, apparently wanting more treats. While Fuller was putting his change into his pocket and preparing to leave, Richard Braese walked into the store. The front door of the store was to Fuller's front, but he had his head turned to his right facing the cashier. Braese walked past Fuller and around to his rear and then reached with his right hand toward the cashier to pay for a lottery ticket. When he did so, Darma quickly moved around the left side of Fuller, jumped up and hit Braese in the chest with her front paws. Braese filed suit seeking to recover damages against Stinker Stores, and he later amended the complaint to add Fuller as a defendant. Stinker Stores filed a motion for summary judgment, and, after briefing and argument, the district court granted the motion, holding that under the facts of this case Stinker Stores did not have a duty to protect Braese from Fuller's dog. The court entered a partial judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims against Stinker Stores. Fuller did not appear, and Braese obtained a default judgment against him for damages in the sum of $25,101.20. Braese then timely appealed the judgment in favor of Stinker Stores. Finding that Stinker Stores did not have a duty to protect Braese from Darma, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Braese, Jr. v. Stinker Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

April Fano and Right Way Publishing, LLC, appealed a district court's judgment following a bench trial in which found Fano liable for breaching a Release Agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of respondent Vianna Stibal for damages, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. While Fano and Stibal were involved in prior litigation, they reached a settlement through mediation and signed a Release Agreement, which mutually released Stibal and Fano from liability to each other for their acts prior to the agreement. The Release Agreement prohibited the parties from making any future negative or disparaging comments about the other. Prior to executing the Release Agreement, Fano had provided negative information about Stibal to a book author. Fano also formed a limited liability company and paid to print 500 books about Stibal. The books were printed before the Release Agreement was executed. Stibal subsequently brought the present action, alleging that Fano had breached the Release Agreement. The district court ruled that Fano was responsible for the comments and documents contained in the book, "Shady Healing," which it determined were obtained from the previous litigation. The district court also found: (1) Fano was substantially involved in bringing "Shady Healing" to market, including providing the book's author with information Fano obtained from the previous litigation with Stibal; (2) paying to print 500 copies of the book; and (3) being a manager of Right Way Publishing, LLC. The district court ruled that "Shady Healing" would not have been published but for Fano's involvement, and that this action coupled with Fano's failure to disclose the existence of the book constituted a breach of the Release Agreement. Fano argued on appeal that the district court erred when it ruled that she breached the Release Agreement because all of the activity complained of occurred before the Release Agreement was executed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Fano was correct: the uncontroverted evidence was that Fano did not sell, promote or distribute the book. Without evidence of a breach, the district court's finding of a breach of the Release Agreement was clearly erroneous. It followed that Fano was not liable to Stibal for any damages, and accordingly, the Court did not address the other issues raised on appeal with respect to damages. The judgment entered by the district court against Fano was reversed. View "Stibal v. Fano" on Justia Law

Spirit Ridge Mineral Springs, LLC appealed a judgment entered in favor of Franklin County dismissing Spirit Ridge's complaint which had requested abatement of a private nuisance and for an injunction against a gun range operated by Franklin County adjacent to its property. In a bench trial, the district court ruled that Spirit Ridge had failed to demonstrate that there was an ongoing and continuing nuisance at the time of the trial. Spirit Ridge appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed: the district court record reflected a lack evidence to show that a nuisance existed after 2008. View "Spirit Ridge Mineral Springs v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

Claimant-appellant Francisco Serrano worked as a framer for Four Seasons Framing from 2001 to 2008. He was injured in two work-related accidents. He appealed an Industrial Commission finding that he failed to prove that the condition for which he was claiming benefits was caused by the two accidents in 2004 and 2008. Finding no reversible error in the Industrial Commission's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Serrano v. Four Seasons Framing" on Justia Law

Gary Corgatelli sought worker's compensation benefits from his employer Steel West and the State of Idaho's Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) for a 2005 back injury that he incurred as a result of his employment. The Idaho Industrial Commission concluded that Corgatelli had a permanent physical impairment of 15% of the whole person, attributing 5% to an earlier injury in 1994 and 10% to the 2005 injury, and that Corgatelli was totally and permanently disabled. The Commission further concluded that ISIF was liable for disability benefits because the effects of Corgatelli's preexisting impairment from the 1994 injury combined with his 2005 injury to cause total and permanent disability. The Commission subsequently issued an order to clarify that Steel West was entitled to credit on the disability award for permanent physical impairment benefits Steel West previously paid to Corgatelli for his 2005 injury. Corgatelli appealed the Commission's order to credit Steel West. ISIF cross-appealed the Commission's determination of ISIF liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Commission erred when it allowed Steel West to offset its liability for total and permanent disability benefits with permanent physical impairment benefits previously paid to Corgatelli. Furthermore, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that ISIF was liable to Corgatelli for benefit payment. The Commission's award to Steel West of a credit for permanent physical impairment benefits previously paid to Corgatelli in 2006 and 2007 for his 2005 back injury was vacated. The Commission's finding of ISIF liability was reversed. And this case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc." on Justia Law

Jami and Ryan Conner appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing their claims for medical malpractice, breach of contract, and loss of consortium. The Conners alleged that Jami unexpectedly became pregnant due to Dr. Bryan Hodges' negligent performance of a bilateral tubal ligation. The district court concluded that the medical malpractice claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations, as Jami suffered some damage that was objectively ascertainable at the time of the surgery. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the Conners' breach of contract and consortium claims but vacated the judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim. View "Conner v. Hodges" on Justia Law

Claimant-appellant Kevin Hope injured his right shoulder in 2003 while he was working for Empro Professional Services. He argued to the Industrial Commission that the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) was liable for part of his income benefits because he was totally and permanently disabled due to pre-existing back and shoulder injuries that combined with his 2003 shoulder injury. If Hope's total and permanent disability resulted from the combined effects of his 2003 shoulder injury and impairments that pre-existed that injury, then ISIF was liable for the portion of income benefits caused by the pre-existing injuries. Hope appealed the Commission's order that ISIF was not liable for any of Hope's benefits. The Commission found that Hope was totally and permanently disabled, but had failed to prove that his disability was a result of pre-existing back and shoulder impairments combined with his last shoulder injury. Hope argued that the Commission's decision was based on errors of law and fact. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order. View "Hope v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund" on Justia Law

Tracy Sales brought suit against spa owner Stacie Peabody, claiming that she contracted a toe infection as a result of a pedicure performed at the spa. The district court granted summary judgment against Sales after concluding that she had failed to present sufficient evidence of causation. The district court also denied Sales' motion for reconsideration based on the ground that she had not adequately alleged the theory of negligence she relied on in support of that motion. Sales timely appealed to the Supreme Court. And after its review, the Court concluded that the district court erred in denying Sales' motion for reconsideration. The decision was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Sales v. Peabody" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a medical malpractice claim brought by Scott and Meri Bybee against Dr. Patrick Gorman. The district court granted Dr. Gorman's motion for summary judgment after concluding that the Bybees' medical expert had failed to show adequate familiarity with the applicable standard of health care practice in the relevant community as required by Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013, rendering his opinion inadmissible. Finding that the trial court erred by that decision, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bybee v. Gorman" on Justia Law

Appellant Irina Shea brought a negligence suit against Respondent Kevic Corporation (Kevic), d/b/a Lett’s Downtown Car Wash. Shea claimed that she was injured when she slipped and fell on ice near the exit of the car wash due to Kevic’s negligence in allowing ice to build up near the car wash exit or in failing to warn of the danger of ice buildup. The district court granted Kevic’s motion to strike portions of the affidavit of Shea’s attorney Henry Madsen and also granted Kevic’s motion for summary judgment. Shea appealed these rulings. In addition, Shea appealed the district court’s denial of her two motions for reconsideration. Kevic cross-appealed the district court’s order denying its motion to strike portions of Shea’s affidavit, which Shea filed in support of her first motion for reconsideration. Finding only that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to Kevic because Shea showed genuine issues of material fact, the Supreme Court reversed on this issue, affirmed in all other respects, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Shea v. Kevic Corporation" on Justia Law