414 P.3d 205
Idaho2018Background
- On July 11, 2014 Haight struck an orange construction barrel on I-90 while towing a fifth-wheel camper; she alleges the barrel was within the only open lane and damaged the camper.
- Haight sued the Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) for negligence (including negligence per se) and sought damages and ongoing loss of use; she also sought declaratory/injunctive relief challenging portions of Idaho driver and motorcycle manuals as misleading.
- ITD moved for summary judgment on both claims; Haight filed discovery very late and moved under I.R.C.P. 56(d) for more time—her Rule 56(d) motion was untimely and denied by the district court.
- At the summary judgment hearing Haight’s counsel declined to argue the negligence claim and did not identify evidence showing ITD had actual or constructive notice of the barrel’s dangerous placement; the court granted summary judgment for ITD and dismissed the declaratory-judgment claim for lack of standing.
- Haight appealed; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 56(d) motion, there was insufficient evidence ITD had notice of the hazard, and Haight lacked standing to seek an injunction about ITD manuals. The Court also awarded appellate fees to ITD under I.A.R. 11.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Haight's untimely I.R.C.P. 56(d) motion for additional discovery | Haight said unforeseeable personal/counsel issues and late receipt of ITD's discovery prevented timely opposition and further discovery was needed to identify responsible parties and facts | ITD argued the Rule 56(d) motion was untimely, failed to specify what discovery would produce, and Haight had not diligently pursued discovery | Denial affirmed: motion untimely, lacked specificity about needed discovery, and Haight failed to diligently pursue discovery |
| Whether ITD had actual or constructive notice of the barrel creating a dangerous condition, sufficient to survive summary judgment | Placement/maintenance of barrels on interstate that caused damage establishes prima facie negligence | ITD argued it had no actual or constructive notice and thus no duty breached; it only must warn of known hazards | Summary judgment affirmed for ITD: Haight produced no evidence ITD knew or should have known of the barrel being out of place; burden on nonmovant unmet |
| Whether Haight had standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief against ITD manuals under I.C. §67-5278 and related authority | Haight claimed manuals misrepresent law and threaten her legal rights; requested correction of licensing materials | ITD argued statute requires a genuine injury or threatened injury traceable to the rule; Haight showed no distinct, personal injury caused by manuals | Claim dismissed for lack of standing: Haight failed to show injury in fact or a redressable causal link |
| Whether sanctions (attorney fees) on appeal were appropriate under I.A.R. 11.2 | Implicitly, Haight offered no persuasive justification for appeal | ITD sought fees, asserting appeal was frivolous and counsel signed pleadings without reasonable inquiry | Fees awarded: Court deemed the appeal frivolous and sanctions appropriate under I.A.R. 11.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45 (2002) (summary-judgment standard and appellate review)
- Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp., 141 Idaho 233 (2004) (Rule 56(d) continuance requires specification of what discovery will reveal)
- Taylor v. AIA Services Corp., 151 Idaho 552 (2011) (standard for denying Rule 56(d) continuance when not sufficiently justified)
- Carnell v. Barker Mgmt., 137 Idaho 322 (2002) (district court discretion in Rule 56(d) rulings)
- Smith v. State, 93 Idaho 795 (1970) (state liability for maintaining known dangerous highway conditions)
- Leliefield v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357 (1983) (duty to warn motorists of known dangerous conditions)
- Rawson v. Idaho State Bd. of Cosmetology, 107 Idaho 1037 (Ct. App. 1985) (standing where plaintiff suffered direct licensing injury)
- Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, 128 Idaho 371 (1996) (standing requires distinct palpable injury and causal connection)
- Sim v. Jacobson, 157 Idaho 980 (2015) (interpretation of appellate sanction rule and requirements for filings)
- Flying A Ranch, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Fremont Cnty., 156 Idaho 449 (2014) (Rule 11 construction and sanctions)