Sales v. Peabody, 335 P.3d 40

Stacie Peabody owned Fingerprints Day Spa in Boise with two shared pedicure foot basins.
Tracy Sales, a spa client, sued for negligence after a toe infection following a pedicure performed by Linda Cook, a lessee.
Cook used her own supplies and shared basins; Peabody claimed cleaning duties for the basins fell under her responsibility when she used the stations.
Sales alleged a puncture occurred during the pedicure, leading to infection and subsequent medical treatment.
The district court granted summary judgment on the negligence claim, and later on reconsideration, concluding causation evidence was insufficient; Sales appealed.
On appeal, the court held that Sales’ complaint adequately pleaded negligence and that Peabody owed a duty to maintain sanitary, shared facilities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of reconsideration was proper	Sales contends reconsideration was appropriate due to adequate pleading and new evidence.	Peabody argues reconsideration raised new theory not pleaded; grant was proper.	Reversal: denial of reconsideration based on pleading deficiency was error.
Whether the negligence claim can be sustained on a duty to maintain sanitary facilities	Sales alleged Peabody’s duty to keep facilities and basins clean to prevent infection.	Peabody argues no duty to clean lessees’ tools or basins beyond ordinary premises maintenance.	Duty to maintain sanitary joint facilities exists; question for remand.
Whether the record supports causation or a superseding cause as alternative grounds	Chandler opined infection linked to basin; causation questioned but supported by evidence.	Superseding puncture by Cook or lack of causal evidence defeats claim; admissibility issues argued.	Intervening/superseding theory and admissibility cannot sustain summary judgment; remand for proof.

Massey v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 156 Idaho 476 (2014) (sua sponte pleading deficiencies require argument and opportunity to address)
Nield v. Pocatello Health Servs., Inc., 156 Idaho 802 (2014) (differential diagnosis admissibility framework for causation)
Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 143 Idaho 834 (2007) (causation and differential diagnosis considerations)
Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) (proximate cause and expert testimony standards in infection cases)
Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Products, 139 Idaho 172 (2003) (pleading sufficiency standard under I.R.C.P. 8(a))
Hecla Mining Co. v. StarMorning Mining Co., 122 Idaho 778 (1992) (evidence admissibility and preservation principles at summary judgment)
Bramwell v. South Rigby Canal Co., 136 Idaho 648 (2001) (duty and standard of care in negligence actions)
Dodge-Farrar v. Am. Cleaning Servs. Co., 137 Idaho 838 (Ct.App. 2002) (lay versus expert causation testimony considering temporal proximity)
Clark v. Olsen, 110 Idaho 323 (1986) (minimal pleading requirements and purpose of complaint)
Thomson v. Idaho Ins. Agency, Inc., 126 Idaho 527 (1994) (summary judgment standards and appellate review)
Ball v. City of Blackfoot, 152 Idaho 673 (2012) (preservation of evidentiary challenges at summary judgment)