Billie Jo Major v. Security Eq Corp, 307 P.3d 1225

Background

Billie Jo Major, an IDOC corrections officer with preexisting respiratory problems, participated in OC (oleoresin capsicum) "MK-9 Fogger" pepper spray training on March 3, 2008 and alleges worsening of chronic respiratory disease thereafter.
Major sued Security Equipment Corporation (SEC) asserting strict products liability (defective product), failure-to-warn, and breach of express warranty; she claimed the product could cause acute and chronic respiratory injury and that SEC failed to warn IDOC.
SEC moved for summary judgment arguing Major could not show SEC knew or should have known of the risk (foreseeability) and that the expert evidence focused on acute, not chronic injury.
Major submitted expert affidavits from Dr. Garold Yost; the district court denied one motion, later struck Yost’s second affidavit as a sham, granted subsequent summary judgment to SEC on the FHSA-related claim, and entered final judgment for SEC.
The Idaho Supreme Court held the district court erred: (1) Yost’s affidavits and deposition created a genuine factual dispute about foreseeability of chronic injury from OC exposure, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in striking Yost’s second affidavit as a sham; the judgment was vacated and the case remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SEC was entitled to summary judgment on failure-to-warn (foreseeability of chronic injury)	Major: Yost’s affidavits and literature citations show SEC knew or should have known MK-9 posed both acute and chronic respiratory risks	SEC: Expert evidence fails to identify studies or 2008 scientific support for foreseeable chronic injury; Yost addresses acute effects, not chronic harm	Court: Reversed — Yost’s affidavits (esp. third) and deposition create genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability; summary judgment improper
Whether Yost’s second affidavit should be struck as a sham	Major: The second affidavit clarifies and refines deposition testimony; differences do not show contradiction or bad faith	SEC: Second affidavit directly contradicts Yost’s deposition and should be disregarded	Court: Reversed — Idaho courts should not apply sham-affidavit doctrine to resolve credibility at summary judgment; striking the affidavit was an abuse of discretion
Whether issues of credibility and expert consistency can be resolved at summary judgment	Major: Expert refinements are permissible; credibility questions for jury	SEC: Inconsistencies defeat affidavit’s admissibility	Court: Credibility/bad-faith determinations inappropriate at summary judgment absent clear record; reasonable inferences favoring nonmovant required
Entitlement to attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121	Major: Seeks fees as prevailing party on appeal	SEC: Seeks fees as prevailing party	Court: Neither party awarded fees — appeal not frivolous or unreasonable

Key Cases Cited

Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 132 Idaho 816, 979 P.2d 1174 (products may be defective for failure to warn when danger is foreseeable)
Sliman v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 112 Idaho 277, 731 P.2d 1267 (foreseeability is a factual question for the jury)
Toner v. Lederle Labs., 112 Idaho 328, 732 P.2d 297 (knowledge based on reliable information is imputed to seller)
Mains v. Cach, 143 Idaho 221, 141 P.3d 1090 (trial court abused discretion in disregarding an expert affidavit as contradictory to deposition)
Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 281 P.3d 103 (threshold admissibility of affidavits at summary judgment)
Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10, 175 P.3d 172 (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility rulings)
Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867, 136 P.3d 338 (duty to supplement and that expert testimony may change)
Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 291 P.3d 1000 (discussion of sham-affidavit doctrine in Idaho jurisprudence)
Conley v. Whittlesey, 133 Idaho 265, 985 P.2d 1127 (standard for awarding appellate attorney fees)