357 P.3d 850
Idaho2015Background
- Helicopter flight contracted by Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game to survey salmon; pilot was Perry Krinitt Jr.; passengers were two Department employees (Barrett and Schiff).
- During an unscheduled landing approach near Kamiah, something struck the tail rotor; helicopter lost control and crashed, killing all on board.
- NTSB-style wreckage evidence placed metal clipboard parts and fractured tail-rotor components in the same debris field; experts concluded a clipboard struck the tail rotor.
- Schiff had owned and been assigned responsibility for a metal clipboard used for data collection; pilot briefed occupants to maintain control of personal items and said Schiff was responsible for the clipboard.
- Plaintiff (Krinit t’s father) sued the Department and State for wrongful death; defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted; Idaho Supreme Court vacated that judgment and reversed the summary-judgment order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on negligence (possession, timing, foreseeability of clipboard leaving cabin) | Circumstantial evidence (ownership, briefing, debris field, expert reconstruction) shows Schiff likely had clipboard and it exited right door, so factual disputes preclude summary judgment | No direct evidence who had clipboard when it left cabin; collision was unforeseeable accident | Reversed summary judgment — reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence create genuine factual disputes for jury |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Instrumentality (clipboard) was under exclusive control of Department employee (Schiff) and accident is the sort that does not occur absent negligence | Pilot also had access to clipboard; exclusive control not shown | Res ipsa applicable as circumstantial evidence can establish exclusive control and justify inference of negligence; jury question survives |
| Negligence per se based on agency safety policies/training | Schiff lacked required safety training; violations of Department safety policies establish negligence per se | Department policies were internal and not adopted via Idaho Administrative Procedures Act; thus not legally binding regulations | Court affirmed that internal policies not adopted under APA lack force of law; negligence per se claim fails |
| Failure to rule on defendants’ motion to strike experts’ affidavits | District court’s nonruling alleged error | Defendants contend affidavits should be struck | Idaho Supreme Court declined to address because no adverse ruling in record; preservation rule bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45 (Idaho 2002) (summary-judgment standard and construing facts in nonmoving party’s favor)
- Splinter v. City of Nampa, 74 Idaho 1 (Idaho 1953) (circumstantial evidence competent to establish negligence and proximate cause)
- Harper v. Hoffman, 95 Idaho 933 (Idaho 1974) (function and use of res ipsa loquitur to permit inference of negligence)
- Christensen v. Potratz, 100 Idaho 352 (Idaho 1979) (elements of res ipsa loquitur: exclusive control and event unlikely absent negligence)
- Steed v. Grand Teton Council of the Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 144 Idaho 848 (Idaho 2007) (negligence per se as a method of proving common-law negligence)
- Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609 (Idaho 1986) (statutes/regulations may define standard of care; violations can constitute negligence per se)
- Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction, 144 Idaho 177 (Idaho 2007) (agency internal policies not adopted under APA do not support private cause of action)