Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose from an action filed against the City of Lewiston by Tim Thompson, Janet Thompson, and Thompson's Auto Sales (collectively, Thompson). Thompson filed a claim under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), alleging the City negligently designed and installed a storm water drain system on a city street adjacent to Thompson's property, which caused storm water runoff to flow onto Thompson's property and damage it. After suit was filed, Thompson entered bankruptcy proceedings and the bankruptcy trustee, C. Barry Zimmerman, was substituted as Plaintiff in the action. The City moved for summary judgment on the grounds of discretionary immunity and design immunity. The district court denied the motion as to design immunity, but granted the motion on the ground of discretionary immunity. Zimmerman appealed, arguing that the discretionary immunity exception to liability under the ITCA does not grant immunity from liability for damage caused by negligent design and, alternatively, that even if discretionary immunity was considered, it was inapplicable in this case because the City's actions were not discretionary within the meaning of the exception. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the City was not entitled to immunity from liability under any exception to the ITCA. View "Zimmerman v. City of Lewiston" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas R. Taylor filed this action seeking to recover damages for alleged medical malpractice. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1001, he then filed a request for a prelitigation screening panel four days later. The panel appointed regarding the alleged malpractice in this case conducted its proceedings and then issued its report on April 19, 2011. Although Plaintiff filed this action on January 20, 2011, he did not attempt to serve the summons and complaint upon any of the Defendants within six months after filing the complaint as mandated by Rule 4(a)(2) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 16, 2011, defendant Eastern Idaho Health Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss this action as to it for the failure of Plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint upon it within the six-month period. Plaintiff filed a motion asking the district court to stay this lawsuit "nunc pro tunc from January 24, 2011, to April 19, 2011, or, alternatively, to extend [Plaintiff's] deadline for serving all Defendants to this lawsuit from July 19, 2011, to October 12, 2011." The district court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motions and granting the motions to dismiss filed by defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Because the partial judgment was not yet final due to the fact that there was no judgment resolving the claims against the remaining defendants, the Supreme Court then issued a notice that the appeal would be dismissed. Plaintiff then filed an amended notice of appeal timely appealing both the initial judgment and the amended judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court: if there is not good cause for the failure to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint within six months after the complaint was filed, Rule 4(a)(2) states that "the action shall be dismissed as to the defendant without prejudice." Had Plaintiff served the Defendants before the prelitigation screening panel had completed its work, the worst that could have happened is that the district court would have stayed the court proceedings until after the panel had completed its work and for thirty days thereafter. Even if Plaintiff had thought he should wait until thirty days after the panel issued its report before serving the Defendants with a summons and complaint, he had from May 19, 2011, until July 20, 2011 to do so, but did not even attempt service during that time. View "Taylor v. Chamberlain" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a boundary line dispute between neighboring property owners in Clearwater County. Jimmy and Susan Sims brought suit against Eugene and Elda Daker, claiming a fence line between their properties constituted a boundary by agreement. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the Simses. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the district court erred in determining that the fence line constituted a boundary by agreement. Upon review, the Court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the fence line constituted a boundary by agreement, and accordingly affirmed the district court's judgment quieting title in favor of the Simses. View "Sims v. Daker" on Justia Law

Benjamin Morris appealed an order of the Idaho Industrial Commission that denied his motion to set aside a lump sum settlement agreement he made with his employer's surety, Liberty Northwest Insurance. Morris initiated his workers' compensation action after he suffered injuries while working construction for his employer, Hap Taylor & Sons, Inc. Morris sustained a serious head injury on when a twenty-five pound rock thrown by a piece of heavy machinery struck him in the head. Morris initiated settlement discussions with Liberty Northwest Insurance, Hap Taylor & Sons' insurer. Liberty responded with a counter-offer—a single lump sum payment which Morris accepted "with the clear understanding this is a partial settlement and does not resolve the medical side." The parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Partial Lump Sum Discharge (LSSA) and submitted it to the Commission for approval. Approximately eighteen months later, on July 8, 2011, a Notice of Appearance was filed with the Commission whereby Morris substituted attorney Michael Walker with his then present counsel, attorney Starr Kelso. On the same day, Morris filed a motion to review the LSSA, accompanied by an affidavit signed by Kelso. Kelso's affidavit expressed concern that Morris may not have been "competent to testify" due to his injury—though, no credible evidence of incompetence was ever offered. Liberty filed an objection to Morris' motion to review. Ultimately, the Commission denied Morris' motion. Following the Commission's refusal to review the LSSA, Morris filed a Motion to Set Aside Lump Sum Settlement Agreement, seeking to void the LSSA on grounds of illegality and constructive fraud. The Commission issued an order denying Morris' motion to set the LSSA. Morris filed a timely appeal to the Supreme Court. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commission did not err in denying Morris' request for a hearing on his fraud claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision to deny Morris' motion to set the LSSA. View "Morris v. Hap Taylor & Sons" on Justia Law

This case arose from the water loss claims Appellant Roger Daniel Rizzo made under Respondent State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's homeowners insurance policy. All of Appellant's claims were for water damage to his home's basement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, effectively dismissing all of Appellant's causes of action because his homeowner's policy did not cover his water damage claims. Appellant also appealed the district court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint to include various new causes of action and the district court's grant of State Farm's motion for protective order against certain overbroad discovery requests. Finding no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions. View "Rizzo v. State Farm Insurance" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court in this case was appeal and cross-appeal of summary judgments dismissing claims against Defendants Ada County, Deputy Jeremy Wroblewski, Kate Pape, and James Johnson in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action brought by Rita Hoagland on behalf of herself and the estate of her deceased son, Bradley Munroe ("Munroe"), claiming a violation of a Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care and safety while Munroe was detained at Ada County Jail where he committed suicide. Munroe had a history of incarceration at Ada County Jail ("ACJ"). During the evening of September 28, 2008, Munroe was arrested and charged with the armed robbery of a convenience store. Munroe was intoxicated and uncooperative. During booking, Munroe was screaming and being rowdy. Munroe took a string and wrapped it around his neck. Because of his bizarre behavior throughout the night, Munroe was placed in a holding cell for observation until he was sober. The next morning booking continued. At that time, Munroe requested protective custody. Munroe was placed in a cell by himself and a well-being check was scheduled to occur every thirty minutes. Later that evening during a well-being check, the performing deputy found Munroe hanging from his top bunk by a bed sheet. Munroe was pronounced dead later that evening. Among the issues on appeal were: whether the decedent's estate could assert a 42 U.S.C 1983 action for alleged violations of the decedent's constitutional rights; whether the parent had standing to assert a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for the death of her adult child while incarcerated; and whether the district court erred in awarding costs to Defendants. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court: (1) was affirmed in dismissing Hoagland's 1983 claim on behalf of Munroe's estate; (2) was reversed in finding that Hoagland had a 1983 cause of action for violations of her own constitutional rights; (3) was partially affirmed in its award of costs as a matter of right; (4) was reversed in its award of discretionary costs; and (5) was affirmed in denying attorney fees. The case was remanded for the reconsideration and entry of express findings regarding the district court's award of discretionary costs. View "Hoagland v. Ada County" on Justia Law

In 2011, Gordon Ravenscroft filed a Petition for Judicial Review against Boise County, its Board of Commissioners, and other individual defendants. The petition sought review of the Board's final decision terminating Ravenscroft's employment. The petition claimed Ravenscroft was denied his constitutional right to due process, the board acted outside the bounds of its authority, and his firing was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. In response, the Board filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a county personnel determination. The district court determined that it had jurisdiction over the Board's decision to terminate Ravenscroft because the decision was an "action" under I.C. 31-1506. The Board then sought permission to appeal this decision, which the district court granted. The question in this case is whether the Board's decision to terminate Ravenscroft is subject to the judicial review provisions of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act [IAPA]. The IAPA and its judicial review provisions do not apply to the actions of local governing bodies, unless expressly authorized by statute. The Supreme Court concluded that the Board's decision to terminate Ravenscroft was an "Act" under I.C. 31-1506, and that his at-will status did not change the scope of Ravenscroft's claim. "If the employment is at will, judicial review will not enable the court to change it to employment terminable only for cause." The Court affirmed the district court's determination that the Board's decision to terminate Ravenscroft was an action under 31-1506. View "Ravenscroft v. Boise County" on Justia Law

Petitioner Peter Kaseburg was a littoral owner on Lake Pend Oreille who held an encroachment permit for a series of decaying wooden pilings that were driven into the lakebed in the 1930s. With the exception of a single piling that a neighboring marina uses to anchor one of its docks, the pilings never had any known navigational purpose. Petitioner applied to the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) for a permit to replace ten of the wooden pilings with steel pilings, but failed to specify any navigational purpose for this proposal. The IDL considered the application a request for a nonnavigational encroachment permit and denied it after receiving several objections. While a final decision was still pending on the first permit application, Petitioner filed a second application for a permit to install a mobile dock system and mooring buoy. The IDL considered the second application a request for a permit for a navigational encroachment extending beyond the line of navigability. Again, the IDL received many objections and denied the application. Petitioner then sought judicial review, which reversed the IDL. The court held that all pilings were navigational encroachments as a matter of law, regardless of whether they have ever been used to aid navigation. The district court set aside both denials. The IDL appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court with respect to the first application, but affirmed the district court with respect to the second. View "Idaho Bd of Land Comm v. Kaseburg" on Justia Law

Appellant Matthew Mazzone appealed an Idaho Industrial Commission's order that denied him workers' compensation for psychological injuries allegedly arising as a result of an industrial accident wherein appellant tripped and fell into a deep fat fryer while employed at Texas Roadhouse. Appellant contended the Commission’s order was not based on substantial and competent evidence. During his time at a Burn Center, appellant was twice noted in medical records to be exhibiting exaggerated pain behaviors. At one point during his treatment, appellant stayed at a hotel in Salt Lake City so as to receive follow-up care. In a follow-up at the Burn Center, appellant had quit "cold turkey" his opioid medication, at which point he began to experience nightmares and flashbacks. Appellant was referred to an Idaho psychiatrist. The Idaho psychiatrist clarified that appellant's nightmares and anxiety were related to returning to work; appellant was assessed a GAF score of 55/85, the same assessment he had before the industrial accident. Three months after accident, appellant returned to work, but he was allegedly so overwhelmed that he asked to transfer to another Texas Roadhouse location in Massachusetts because he was nervous, sick, worried, and nauseous working at the site of the accident. Subsequent years following the accident, appellant sought additional counseling and medical treatment. He was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and general anxiety and memory loss. Appellant then filed a complaint against Texas Roadhouse and its insurer. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that appellant did not suffer a compensable psychological injury, and that the evidence presented was substantial enough to support the Industrial Commission's order. View "Mazzone v. Texas Roadhouse" on Justia Law

In 2006, during the pendency of divorce proceedings, Charles Earl Guess, his wife, and their respective attorneys agreed that Ms. Guess and her attorney would meet Mr. Guess at the parties’ residence so that they could walk through the house and look in a vault in the house with Mr. Guess present. When Ms. Guess and her attorney arrived at the house, they walked with Mr. Guess into the basement where the vault was located. Mr. Guess allowed his wife and her attorney to walk into the vault first, and then he pulled out a semiautomatic pistol, pointed it at them, and stated that he was going to kill them. While holding the pistol in his right hand, he struck Ms. Guess twice in the face with his left fist. She and her attorney were ultimately able to talk Mr. Guess into putting the gun down. After Ms. Guess and her attorney were able to leave the house, they drove to seek medical care for her and to contact the police. The State charged Mr. Guess with two counts of felony aggravated assault, and one count of misdemeanor battery. Ultimately, he and the State entered into a written plea agreement. The State agreed to file an amended information charging him with one count of aggravated assault alleged to have been committed against both victims, to which he would plead guilty. The State then recommended that he be sentenced to a withheld judgment and be placed on probation for no more than five years, and he could withdraw his guilty plea if the district court was unwilling to impose a sentence consistent with that recommendation. Mr. Guess pled guilty to the charge, and the court imposed a sentence consistent with the written plea agreement, with the period of probation being five years. Mr. Guess appealed the sentence. Finding no abuse of the court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Guess" on Justia Law