346 P.3d 259
Idaho2015Background
- Hennefer parents sue Blaine County School District and (initially) instructor Mecham for their son Austin’s death during a Driver’s Education three-point turn on Highway 20 in Slick, snowy, foggy morning conditions (65 mph roadway).
- Austin had only about 3.33 hours of highway driving with an instructor and no highway three-point turns previously completed.
- Mecham, a newly certified Driver’s Education instructor, instructed the three-point turn at the accident location under poor visibility and hazardous road conditions.
- Evidence showed Mecham knew the three-point turn is hazardous, lacked a route plan, and did not use a planned safer turnaround option.
- The jury found Mecham 100% responsible and reckless; damages awarded included $3.5 million in non-economic damages against Mecham’s employer, with Mecham dismissed as an individual defendant.
- District court denied motions for JNOV and new trial; School appealed and Hennefers cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for recklessness under 6-1603 | Hennefers argue should be objective, should-have-known standard. | School argues subjective knowledge is correct. | Court adopts objective should-have-known standard. |
| Directed verdict/JNOV on recklessness | There was sufficient evidence of recklessness to submit to jury. | Evidence insufficient under correct standard to support recklessness. | District court's denial of directed verdict/JNOV affirmed. |
| Jury instructions on recklessness and duties | Instructions correctly stated law; supported by evidence. | Instructions misstate law or overly emphasize recklessness. | Courts uphold as correct; instructions adequate. |
| Admission of Joellen Gill testimony | Gill rebutted School’s expert; testimony proper rebuttal, not improper speculation. | Gill testimony invaded court's province or stated improper states of mind. | Court properly admitted Gill’s testimony as rebuttal and non-prejudicial. |
| Attorney fees sanctions under Rule 37(c) and 6-918A | Hennefers entitled to fees for bad-faith defense; or at least on appeal under 6-918A. | School acted with reasonable grounds; Rule 37(c) discretionary; 6-918A not met. | Sanctions denied under Rule 37(c) and 6-918A not shown; costs to Hennefers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrillo v. Boise Tire Co., 152 Idaho 741 (2012) (reckless conduct is a degree of negligence involving knowledge of substantial risk)
- Phillips v. Erhart, 151 Idaho 100 (2011) (‘should have known’ high probability standard governs recklessness)
- O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 139 Idaho 9 (2003) (recognizes objective standard in recklessness context)
- Hall v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins., 145 Idaho 313 (2008) (affirmed using IDJI 2.25 definition of recklessness)
- Tiegs v. Robertson, 149 Idaho 482 (2010) (appellate review limits on summary judgment denial)
- McPheters v. Peterson, 108 Idaho 107 (1985) (general negligence standard suffices in many cases)
- Contreras v. Rubley, 142 Idaho 573 (2006) (attorney fees—Rule 37(c) discretion; bad-faith standards distinguished)
- Le’Gall v. Lewis Cnty., 129 Idaho 182 (1996) (special verdict form considerations; not inherently confusing)
- Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759 (1986) (damages review—discretionary, must show passion/prejudice)