Tiffany Ann Marie Fragnella v. Robert B. Petrovich, Jr.
153 Idaho 266
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Consolidation of three Idaho personal injury/wrongful death actions arising from a December 5, 2007 crash involving Petrovich’s semi-truck.
- Petrovich, Swift Transportation entities, Interstate Equipment Leasing were defendants; Thayer (Swift trainee) was a plaintiff in one action; Fragnella’s estate and Plouffe were plaintiffs in others.
- Plaintiffs alleged Petrovich negligently operated the truck; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding no causal link was shown and Thayer’s claim barred by workers’ compensation exclusive remedy.
- Petrovich was an employee/agent of Swift Transportation; Thayer’s claim against Petrovich was argued to be barred as a third-party tortfeasor under the exclusive remedy rule.
- Appellants sought to amend complaints with new factual allegations (brake canister hole, Allopurinol effects, speed on icy roads) and a punitive damages claim; motions for reconsideration denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on causation? | Fragnella/Plouffe/Thayer argued genuine issues of material fact on causation. | Respondents contended no admissible evidence showed Petrovich caused the collision. | No genuine issues; Petrovich not proximate cause as a matter of law. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in striking affidavits? | Skelton/Aherin/Thayer affidavits contained admissible facts and methodologies. | Affidavits lacked proper foundation and methodologies; some were unsworn or improper. | Court did not abuse discretion; striking was proper. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by denying motions for reconsideration? | New evidence would raise genuine issues of material fact defeating summary judgment. | Reconsideration did not reveal genuine material facts; standard established by prior ruling. | No abuse; reconsideration properly denied. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to amend the Amended Complaint? | Additional facts and punitive damages claim should be allowed; discovery revealed new evidence. | Facts were already considered; punitive damages not supported; amendment properly denied. | No abuse; amended-pleading denial affirmed. |
| Was Thayer’s negligence claim against Petrovich barred by the exclusive remedy rule? | Thayer is a third-party claimant; not covered by workers’ compensation shield. | Petrovich acted as Swift’s employee/agent; exclusive remedy applies. | Court need not resolve because no causal negligence proven; Thayer fails on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDevitt v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., 151 Idaho 280 (Idaho 2011) (elements of negligence; causation required)
- Mitchell v. Bingham Mem'l Hosp., 130 Idaho 420 (Idaho 1997) (liberal construction for summary judgment evidence)
- McKim v. Horner, 149 P.3d 843 (Idaho 2006) (proximate causation standard)
- J-U-B Eng’rs., Inc. v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 193 P.3d 858 (Idaho 2008) (admissibility of expert testimony; Rule 56(e))
- O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 188 P.3d 846 (Idaho 2008) (abuse of discretion standard; discretionary decisions)
- West Wood Invs., Inc. v. Acord, 106 P.3d 401 (Idaho 2005) (standard of review for discretionary decisions)
- PHH Mortg. Servs. Corp. v. Perreira, 200 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2009) (motion for reconsideration; standard of review)
- Doe I v. Sisters of the Holy Cross, 895 P.2d 1229 (Ct. App. 1995) (proximate causation; foreseeability standard)