Carrillo v. BOISE TIRE CO., INC.
152 Idaho 741
Idaho2012Background
- Jose Carrillo and Marisela Lycan were cohabiting partners with a child; Boise Tire serviced their car and performed a tire rotation.
- An 18-month-old Nayeli survived the crash with no physical injury but exhibited emotional distress; Jose sustained injuries and later became permanently disabled.
- Trial evidence included expert testimony about lug studs and potential over-tightening; lay witness accounts described Nayeli’s post-accident behavioral changes.
- Plaintiffs claimed negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress; jury found Boise Tire’s conduct willful or reckless and awarded damages to Jose and Nayeli, plus a wrongful death award.
- Boise Tire moved for new trial and for pre-judgment reduction under I.C. § 6-1606, and the district court remitted Nayeli’s noneconomic damages; post-trial disputes included attorney fees and collateral-source reductions.
- Court withdrew a prior opinion and issued a substitute opinion addressing whether the verdict should be remitted, and how collateral sources and social security benefits affected damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying a new trial on damages under Rule 59(a)(5). | Carrillos argue the award for Nayeli’s noneconomic damages was excessive. | Boise Tire contends the award was the product of passion or prejudice and unsupported by the evidence. | No abuse; Nayeli’s noneconomic damages supported by evidence of emotional distress in a child; remittitur approved. |
| Whether the district court properly allowed recklessness to be considered despite pleadings. | Carrillos contend recklessness was not pled, so cap applies. | Boise Tire argues lack of notice to defend against recklessness. | Reckless misconduct is a form of heightened negligence; pleadings provided sufficient notice. |
| Whether I.C. § 6-1606 collateral-source offsets were correctly applied regarding subrogation, Nayeli’s social security survivor benefits, and Jose’s past disability benefits. | Carrillos seek to offset only certain collateral sources. | Boise Tire seeks deductions for subrogation transfer and certain collateral sources. | Subrogation transfer is not a collateral source; Nayeli survivor benefits not deductible under 6-1606; Jose past disability benefits must be offset on remand. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied Carrillos’ attorney-fee requests under I.C. § 12-120(3) and I.R.C.P. 37. | Carrillos seek fees related to commercial transaction; claim involves tort. | Boise Tire opposes fee recovery. | Fees denied under 12-120(3) and 37( sanctions not warranted; appeal not frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons NW, 100 Idaho 840 (Idaho 1980) (emotional distress proof requires physical manifestations or proof of distress)
- Summers v. W. Idaho Potato Processing Co., 94 Idaho 1, 479 P.2d 292 (Idaho 1970) (necessity of physical causes or manifestations for emotional distress)
- State v. Papse, 83 Idaho 358, 362 P.2d 1083 (Idaho 1961) (reckless misconduct defined with heightened knowledge of risk)
- Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526, 81 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2003) (collateral sources and subrogation under 6-1606 analysis)
- Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723, 152 P.3d 594 (Idaho 2007) (commercial transaction basis for attorney-fee awards; notice standards)
- Fritts v. Liddle & Moeller Const., Inc., 144 Idaho 171, 158 P.3d 947 (Idaho 2007) (definition of commercial transaction for § 12-120(3))
- Beus v. Beus, 151 Idaho 235, 254 P.3d 1231 (Idaho 2011) (standards for appellate attorney-fee awards)
- Cook v. Skyline Corp., 135 Idaho 26, 13 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2000) (notice-pleading and general purposes of pleadings)
- Clark v. Olsen, 110 Idaho 323, 715 P.2d 993 (Idaho 1986) (exceptional pleading requirements for certain claims)