322 P.3d 286
Idaho2014Background
- Rick Blizzard underwent colostomy reversal surgery on June 4, 2008; post-op he developed a rectovesical fistula when the bladder was stapled into the colorectal anastomosis.
- Blizzard required multiple subsequent surgeries, incurred ~$852,213 in medical expenses, and later died (suicide); his survivors pursued malpractice and survival/wrongful-death claims.
- At trial, Plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Harris) said a reasonable surgeon would have taken steps to avoid stapling the bladder; Defendants’ sole expert (Dr. Liu) testified the result was within the standard of care.
- The jury returned a verdict on Verdict Form A finding no negligence and no lack of informed consent, so it did not address causation or damages.
- The district court found the negligence verdict was against the weight of the evidence but denied a Rule 59(a)(6) new-trial motion because it could not conclude a new trial would alter the ultimate outcome (including causation/comparative negligence).
- The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the denial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by requiring the judge to assess the probability of a different ultimate case outcome rather than whether a different result would occur as to the specific jury question(s) answered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a Rule 59(a)(6) new-trial motion | Judge need only assess whether the jury’s answered question(s) (here, negligence) were against the weight of the evidence and whether a different result on those answered questions is more probable on retrial | Judge properly must assess whether a new trial would likely change the ultimate outcome of the entire case (including causation, comparative negligence, and damages) | The court held the district court abused its discretion; on the second prong the judge need only determine probability of a different result as to the question(s) actually answered by the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Burggraf v. Chaffin, 121 Idaho 171, 823 P.2d 775 (1991) (articulates abuse-of-discretion standard and affirms trial court discretion to grant new trial)
- Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power, 119 Idaho 87, 803 P.2d 993 (1990) (sets out three-part test for abuse of discretion review)
- Sheridan v. St. Luke’s Reg’l Med. Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 25 P.3d 88 (2001) (discusses trial judge’s authority to grant new trial despite substantial supporting evidence)
- Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 727 P.2d 1187 (1986) (distinguishes review in damages-based new-trial motions and discusses trial judge’s role)
- Warren v. Sharp, 139 Idaho 599, 83 P.3d 773 (2003) (held trial judge must consider comparative negligence on retrial; Court here narrows/overrules insofar as inconsistent)
- Robertson v. Richards, 115 Idaho 628, 769 P.2d 505 (1989) (establishes two-pronged test for new-trial motions: weight of evidence and probability of different result)