Phillips v. Erhart
151 Idaho 100
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Erhart owners of a Meridian building replaced deteriorated exterior stairs with concrete treads but installed one tread on each side only loosely, using washers inconsistently and without shims or proper bolts to secure treads; a tenant reported a loose lower tread two months before the accident.
- Phillips, a 320-pound tenant, fell on the lower flight while descending with a box, suffering a closed head injury and permanent brain damage; wife Phillips sought damages for loss of consortium.
- Experts opined that unbolted treads and an unattached handrail created unreasonably dangerous conditions and that the lag bolts and brackets were stressed, violating building codes.
- Medical records and statements describing the fall were admitted without timely objections, and the jury credited evidence linking stair defects to the injury.
- District court denied JMVO and new trial; remittitur reduced Phillips' economic damages, and the Erharts appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding there was substantial evidence of causation and willful/reckless conduct, and no abuse of discretion on loss-of-consortium damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual cause for the fall | Phillips and weight/duty show causal link | Insufficient evidence of actual cause | Yes; substantial evidence supported causation |
| Willful or reckless misconduct | Erhart knew or should have known of high harm probability | No clear high-probability risk established | Yes; substantial evidence supported willful/reckless conduct |
| Loss-of-consortium new trial | Damages not excessive given husband's injuries | Disparity shows passion/prejudice | No; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Stearns, 106 Idaho 249, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1984) (causation and absence of handrail supported by legitimate inferences)
- Harrison v. Binnion, 147 Idaho 645, 214 P.3d 631 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2009) (proximate cause; actual/legal cause distinction)
- Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284, 127 P.3d 187 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2005) (actual cause defined; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- McKim v. Horner, 143 Idaho 568, 149 P.3d 843 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2006) (need for substantial and competent evidence in sufficiency review)
- Gem-Valley Ranches, Inc. v. Small, 90 Idaho 354, 411 P.2d 943 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1966) (hearsay evidence admitted without objection may be weighed by jury)
- State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694, 215 P.3d 414 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2009) (credibility and weight of evidence; standard of review for appeals)
- Weinstein v. Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 149 Idaho 299, 233 P.3d 1221 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010) (standard for reviewing damages and new-trial motions)
- Johannsen v. Utterbeck, 146 Idaho 423, 196 P.3d 341 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2008) (district court's discretion on new trial motions; deference to trial court)