Krinitt v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game
162 Idaho 425
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Perry Krinitt Jr., a pilot for Leading Edge Aviation, died in a helicopter crash while transporting Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) employees for a fish survey; the crash was caused when a clipboard struck the tail rotor.
- Perry's father, Perry Krinitt Sr., sued IDFG in wrongful death/negligence.
- IDFG's initial answer did not assert statutory immunity under Idaho's Workers' Compensation Act; it first moved for summary judgment on negligence (granted, then reversed on appeal).
- After remand and mediation, IDFG moved for summary judgment (March 21, 2016) asserting it was Perry's statutory employer and therefore immune; this motion was filed after the district court's dispositive-motion deadline (January 31, 2014).
- The district court granted summary judgment for IDFG on the statutory-employer ground, finding IDFG was a category-one statutory employer because IDFG contracted with the Department of Interior (DOI), which contracted with Leading Edge. The court also imposed sanctions on IDFG under I.R.C.P. 16(i) for late filing.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: (1) statutory-employer status is an affirmative defense that may be raised before trial and was not waived here; (2) IDFG qualified as a category-one statutory employer; (3) the district court acted within its discretion in imposing sanctions for violating the scheduling order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDFG waived the statutory-employer immunity defense by not pleading it in the answer | Krinitt: IDFG waived the defense by failing to timely plead it | IDFG: Statutory-employer status may be raised any time before trial; not a subject-matter jurisdiction issue | Held: Defense is affirmative and can be waived, but may be raised before trial if opposing party has time to respond; district court did not abuse discretion in hearing the late motion and imposing sanctions instead of dismissal |
| Whether IDFG is a statutory employer of Perry | Krinitt: No privity; Leading Edge was contracted to DOI, not IDFG; DOI is federal and outside Act's reach | IDFG: DOI contracted to provide aviation services to IDFG and Leading Edge was a subcontractor, making Perry IDFG's statutory employee | Held: IDFG is a category-one statutory employer because DOI contracted with IDFG for aviation services and Leading Edge was a subcontractor—statutory immunity applies |
| Whether the involvement of the federal DOI precludes application of Idaho's Workers' Compensation Act | Krinitt: Federal agency involvement means DOI (and those under it) are outside Idaho Act | IDFG: Federal involvement does not preclude application of statutory-employer doctrine | Held: Federal entities can qualify such that statutory-employer immunity applies; DOI involvement does not defeat immunity |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning IDFG for violating the scheduling order | Krinitt: (sought denial of motion as remedy) | IDFG: Late filing was excusable given circumstances | Held: No abuse of discretion; sanctions (fees/expenses after the deadline) were reasonable given untimely filing and lack of prejudice but clear violation of scheduling order |
Key Cases Cited
- Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 76 P.3d 951 (summary judgment standard)
- Fuhriman v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 143 Idaho 800, 153 P.3d 480 (statutory-employer immunity is an affirmative defense)
- Kolar v. Cassia Cnty., 142 Idaho 346, 127 P.3d 962 (statutory-employer analysis in negligence suits)
- Patterson v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 151 Idaho 310, 256 P.3d 718 (affirmative defense may be raised before trial if opposing party has opportunity to respond)
- Venters v. Sorrento Del., Inc., 141 Idaho 245, 108 P.3d 392 (categories of statutory employers)
- Ewing v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 147 Idaho 305, 208 P.3d 287 (use of contractor/subcontractor test for category-one statutory employer)
- Lepper v. E. Idaho Health Servs., Inc., 160 Idaho 104, 369 P.3d 882 (standard of review for sanctions under I.R.C.P. 16(i))
- Dominguez ex rel. Hamp v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7, 121 P.3d 938 (concurrent jurisdiction of Industrial Commission and district courts to decide employer status)