Litke v. Munkhoff, 417 P.3d 224

In November 2012 and April 2013 animal control officers declared a pit bull named Bo "aggressive" and later "dangerous;" Sam Munkhoff (owner/handler) and Mark and Robyn Munkhoff (his parents/hosts) were notified of city ordinance requirements for keeping an aggressive/dangerous dog.
Sam left Bo at his parents’ home while working out of state; Sam stayed with the Munkhoffs in July 2013 and walked Bo without a muzzle contrary to the ordinance.
On July 30, 2013, Klaus Kummerling asked to pet Bo, was given permission by Sam, and was severely bitten, suffering permanent facial injuries.
The Kummerlings sued for negligence, gross negligence, outrage, and nuisance against Sam, the Munkhoffs, and municipal defendants; claims against the City and Chief Clark were dismissed; trial proceeded against the Munkhoffs and Sam.
A jury found Sam and the Munkhoffs negligent and negligent per se, awarded economic damages of $16,603 and non-economic damages of $185,000; the district court denied the Munkhoffs’ motions for summary judgment, new trial, remittitur, and Rule 60 relief.
On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it declined to review denial of summary judgment (procedural rule/untimeliness) and held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying new trial/remittitur or Rule 60 relief; costs awarded to respondent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of summary judgment	Munkhoffs: no duty because they lacked control of Bo at injury time; causation broken by Sam’s conduct	Kummerling: triable issues of fact as to custody/control and causation	Court declined to review denial: interlocutory denial non-appealable and Munkhoffs failed to timely seek Rule 12 permission
Excessive damages / passion or prejudice	Munkhoffs: non-economic award shockingly excessive relative to economic damages	Kummerling: injuries permanent and jury award reasonable based on evidence	District court weighed evidence and credibility; Supreme Court affirmed no abuse of discretion
Insufficiency of evidence / verdict against weight of evidence	Munkhoffs: insufficient proof they were custodians or exercised control/influence over Sam	Kummerling: evidence supported allocations of fault to Sam and Munkhoffs; credibility favored plaintiffs	Trial court applied two-prong test, found retrial unlikely to change result; Supreme Court affirmed
Remittitur / Rule 60 relief	Munkhoffs: sought remittitur under I.C. §6-807 and Rule 59.1; sought Rule 60(b) relief for alleged fraud/misrepresentation	Kummerling: no showing verdict resulted from passion, legal error, or fraud; Munkhoffs failed to identify specific legal error	District court made required findings under §6-807; Rule 60 claims inadequately argued and waived; Supreme Court affirmed denial

Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45 (discussing summary judgment standard)
Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 (interlocutory denial of summary judgment is not appealable absent permission)
Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759 (remittitur and new trial standards; deference to jury unless verdict results from passion)
Kuhn v. Coldwell Banker Landmark, Inc., 150 Idaho 240 (new trial warranted when damages result from passion or prejudice)
Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609 (requirements for findings when remitting jury awards under statute)
Hei v. Holzer, 145 Idaho 563 (standards for evaluating remittitur factors)