Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a dispute regarding the sewer system serving Sunnyside Industrial Park, LLC. Sunnyside Park Utilities (SPU) provides water and sewer services to the industrial park and Doyle Beck and Kirk Woolf are, respectively, the Secretary and President of SPU. Printcraft Press, Inc. (Printcraft) is a printing business that occupies a building in the industrial park. In 2004, Printcraft entered a ten-year lease for property in the industrial park. The dispute in this case centered on the failure of Beck, Woolf, and SPU to disclose limitations on the sewage system, including the amount of sewage the system could handle and its lack of suitability to dispose of some chemicals used in the printing business. After Printcraft started using the sewage system, SPU disconnected Printcraft from the system in December 2006. Printcraft sued SPU, Beck, and Woolf (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract, fraudulent nondisclosure, and fraud. At trial, the jury found that the defendants owed Printcraft a duty to disclose the limitations of the system and failed to do so. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in favor of Printcraft. Defendants timely appealed and Printcraft cross-appealed. However, in 2009, SPU filed a renewed motion for relief from judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), asserting newly discovered evidence regarding whether Printcraft's damages claim was affected by its subsequent connection to the Idaho Falls city sewer system. The district court found that the newly discovered evidence satisfied the requirements of I.R.C.P. 60(b) and granted a new trial on the issue of damages. On appeal, the defendants argued that they had no duty to disclose, that any failure to disclose did not lead Printcraft to believe any fact that was false, that the refusal to give SPU's requested jury instructions was improper, and that the district court erred in denying their motion for JNOV because there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of damages. In turn, Printcraft's cross-appeal argued that the district court erred in limiting the potential bases for defendants' duty to disclose, that Printcraft's breach of contract claim was improperly dismissed, that the subsequent Rule 60(b) motion was improperly granted, that the issue of punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury, and that the judge erred in denying Printcraft's request for attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's grant of SPU's motion under 60(b)(2). The Court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for JNOV as to the existence and breach of a duty to disclose and as to the amount of damages. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the jury instructions. And the Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Printcraft's request to put the question of punitive damages to the jury.

This appeal involved a negligence claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Appellant Joseph Gerdon was a passenger in an automobile, traveling with Respondent Joshua Rydalch when the vehicle veered off the road and went down an embankment. At the time of the accident, both Gerdon and Rydalch were employees of Con Paulos Chevrolet, Inc., and were transporting a vehicle for their employer. Gerdon and Rydalch were injured during the accident, and both parties received workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. Gerdon also filed a Complaint against Rydalch for negligent driving. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rydalch, finding that both Gerdon and Rydalch were acting in the course and scope of their employment during the accident. As a result, the district court held that Gerdon's claim of negligence was barred by the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho’s Workers' Compensation statutes. Gerdon appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in holding that Rydalch was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that the court abused its discretion by striking a portion of Gerdon's affidavit. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rydalch because the Court found he was acting in the course of employment when the accident occurred, and therefore, Gerdon's claim of negligence was indeed barred by the exclusive remedy rule. Furthermore, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a portion of Gerdon's affidavit.

After prevailing at trial, Plaintiffs Mathew Bennett and Benjamin Walton sought fees under I.C. 12-120(4), which provides for fees in personal injury actions with claims under $25,000. The district court declined to award fees, holding that the plaintiffs waived any entitlement to fees because their complaint sought more than $25,000 each and because they asked for an even greater amount at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's holding and remanded for a determination of fees.

Defendant-Respondent High Mark Development, LLC owned a commercial building located in the City of Ammon. In 2006, it had leased a portion of the building to The Children's Center, Inc., for a period of ten years. In 2007, High Mark listed the real property for sale through its realtor. Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas O'Shea, a resident of California, learned of the property through a realtor friend in Boise. Appellant and his wife were trustees of the "Thomas and Anne O'Shea Trust u/d/t Dated November 2, 1998," which they had formed to protect their assets and provide for their children. They decided to purchase the real property. The Trust entered into a real estate contract agreeing to purchase the property from Defendant High Mark for $3.7 million. The sale closed late 2007. The Children's Center made no payments to Plaintiffs after they acquired the property. Shortly thereafter, the Children's Center vacated the property, and went out of business. Plaintiffs filed suit against High Mark and two of its principals, Gordon, Benjamin and Jared Arave arguing Defendants had induced them to acquire the property by providing false information that the Children's Center was current in its payments of rent and/or concealing or failing to disclose that the Center had failed to pay all rent due under the lease. Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract and fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure against all of the Defendants, but the issues were narrowed after cross motions for summary judgment. The case was tried to a jury on the issues of: High Mark's breach of contract; High Mark's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; Gordon Arave's alleged fraud by misrepresentation and nondisclosure; and Benjamin Arave's alleged fraud by nondisclosure. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all of those Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied. The Plaintiffs then timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury could reasonably have determined that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were damaged by the breach and that they failed to prove that the breach of contract caused any damages. In addition, the jury could have found that the breach did not cause any damages because the Plaintiffs did not have the right to terminate the contract for the misrepresentation in an estoppel certificate. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the breach of contract claim.

Plaintiffs-Appellants JoAn and Fred Ball were patrons of the City of Blackfoot's municipal pool. JoAn slipped on ice accumulated on the sidewalk between the pool and the parking lot. The Balls brought suit against the City. A district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, dismissing the Balls' claims on grounds that property owners are not liable for injuries resulting from natural accumulations of snow or ice. The Balls appealed. Upon further review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court appealed the wrong legal standard to the Balls' case, and therefore its grant of summary judgment was in error. The Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

As a team building exercise, Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Morrison's employer wanted him and his coworkers to participate in a program at Defendant-Respondent Northwest Nazarene University that included a climbing wall activity. Several days prior to doing so, Plaintiff's employer required him to sign an agreement prepared by the University holding it harmless from any loss or damage he might incur due to the University's negligence or that of its employees. This appeal arose from the district court's grant of summary judgment that held Plaintiff's action for personal injuries suffered when he fell from the climbing wall was barred by the hold harmless agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claim because he was barred by the hold harmless agreement.

Appellant John Stem was helping to load a forklift at his place of work when another employee backed the forklift over a water meter cover which broke under the weight of the forklift. The forklift toppled and pinned Appellant to the ground, resulting in severe injuries and the amputation of his right leg. He sued Respondent Wesley Prouty, the owner and landlord of the property where the accident occurred, for negligence under a theory of premises liability for failing to keep the premises safe. Appellant alleged that the water meter cover was a light duty cover and was inadequate to support heavy duty vehicles such as forklifts. He later amended his complaint to include a negligence-per-se claim against Respondent for failing to obtain a building permit in violation of city and state codes, which he argued would have likely led to the discovery of the defective water meter cover. The district court granted Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing the negligence claim based on premises liability. Respondent filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment on the negligence-per-se claim which was originally denied by the court. Then, upon Motion for Reconsideration, the court granted Respondent summary judgment. Appellant appealed the judgments in favor of Respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no genuine issues of material facts. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent.

This appeal arose from a negligence action brought by Plaintiff-Appellant Isabel Enriquez against Defendant-Respondent Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power). Plaintiff received severe electrical burns when he encountered an aluminum sprinkler pipe that had become energized by a high-voltage power line. He claimed that after the power line broke and electrified the pipe, Idaho Power's safety equipment did not shut off the current to the downed line, allowing him to be shocked when he approached the pipe to move it. The case went to trial, and Plaintiff argued that Idaho Power was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. At the close of Plaintiff's case in chief, Idaho Power moved for a directed verdict. The district court determined that res ipsa loquitur did not apply to the facts of this case and granted the motion. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in holding that res ipsa loquitur did not apply and the directed verdict was therefore improper. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a directed verdict in favor of the power company. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision.

On June 28, 2010, Appellant Maria Gomez filed a Worker’s Compensation Complaint with the Industrial Commission (Commission) claiming benefits for an accident that occurred in 2009, when she injured her lower back lifting sixty-pound boxes. The injury occurred at Blackfoot Brass (Dura Mark). Appellant had previously suffered two work-related accidents while working with Dura Mark, one in 2002, the other in 2006, but had returned to work without restrictions after participating in physical therapy for both injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on a Commission order denying reconsideration of Appellant's motion to reopen the record to allow for additional evidence on the issue of causation. The Industrial Commission previously ordered that Appellant had failed to prove the medical treatment she received for a back injury was related to an industrial accident and injury. At the emergency hearing pursuant to the Judicial Rules of Practice and Procedure adopted by the Commission, Appellant introduced evidence regarding her entitlement to reasonable and necessary medical care pursuant to I.C. 72-432, but the referee denied Appellant's claim on the grounds of causation. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's judgment. In doing so, the Court wanted to provide a "clear message that without a specific stipulation that causation will be a contested issue at the hearing pursuant to I.C. 72-713, and especially if there is a difference of opinion as to causation by opposing parties and their experts, claimant’s attorneys should no longer be lulled by anything other than a stipulation to all legal prerequisites and elements for recovery and be prepared to present evidence of a causal connection between the industrial injury or sickness and the required treatment."

Plaintiff-Appellant Alesha Ketterling alleged that she slipped on snow in the parking lot of the Burger King restaurant in Burley, Idaho, on December 22, 2006. BDSB of Western Idaho, L.C. had the contractual right to operate the restaurant under a franchise agreement with Burger King. HB Boys managed the Burley Burger King under a contract with BDSB. According to Plaintiff, her fall aggravated an existing knee injury. Plaintiff alleged that Burger King’s failure to make the premises safe was negligent and entitled her to damages for her injuries. HB Boys moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff failed to timely join it as a defendant. The district court agreed and granted the motion. The court subsequently granted summary judgment to Burger King, holding that, as franchisor, it did not control the premises where Plaintiff fell and had no vicarious liability for her injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether either Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.