274 P.3d 1256
Idaho2012Background
- José Carrillo and Marisela Lycan, cohabiting partners with a child Nayeli, were served a vehicle service by Boise Tire on March 30, 2007; a wheel failure occurred the next day after a tire rotation, causing a rollover that killed Lycan and injured Carrillo, with Nayeli showing no physical injuries but later exhibiting emotional distress.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death; Boise Tire moved in limine to exclude evidence of intentional, willful, or reckless conduct.
- The jury found Boise Tire’s conduct reckless; noneconomic damages for Nayeli were initially $1,000,000, Nayeli’s economic damages were $0, and the Carrillos and Nayeli incurred other economic damages.
- Trial court denied most new-trial requests; granted limited remittitur reducing Nayeli’s noneconomic damages to $250,000; denied attorney-fee requests; Caldwell County district court adopted some rulings.
- Boise Tire appealed, Carrillos cross-appealed; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reductions consistent with its reasoning, including a remand to subtract Jose’s past Social Security disability benefits from his award.
- The decision remits for the district court to apply 6-1606 collateral-source rules, with specific treatment of subrogation rights and social security benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion denying a new trial | Carrillo | Boise Tire | No; court properly weighed Rule 59 standards |
| Whether 6-1606 reductions were correct as to subrogation and collateral sources | Carrillo and Nayeli | Boise Tire | Partially; remand to deduct Jose’s past SS disability benefits; subrogation transfer not a collateral source; Nayeli’s survivor benefits not deductible under 6-1606; Nayeli’s case not within 6-1606 for future benefits |
| Whether the jury could consider recklessness despite pleadings | Carrillo | Boise Tire | Yes; reckless/malicious standard is a form of heightened negligence and notice was sufficient under the pleadings |
| Whether Carrillos are entitled to attorney fees on appeal under 12-120 or 12-121 | Boise Tire | Carrillo | No for 12-120(3) due to lack of commercial transaction; no 12-121 due to nonfrivolous appeal; district court’s denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526 (2003) (collateral-source issues; subrogation rights scope)
- Summers v. W. Idaho Potato Processing Co., 94 Idaho 1 (1970) (emotional distress proof without physical impact in certain contexts)
- Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons NW, 100 Idaho 840 (1980) (physical manifestations of emotional distress)
- Schwan’s Sales Enters., Inc. v. Idaho Transp. Dep’t, 142 Idaho 826 (2006) (weight-of-evidence standard for Rule 59(a)(6))
- Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620 (1979) (discretion in granting new trials; disparity under Rule 59(a)(5))
- Lettunich v. Key Bank Na, 141 Idaho 362 (2005) (commercial transaction doctrine under 12-120(3))
- Beus v. Beus, 151 Idaho 235 (2011) (standards for fee awards on appeal)