 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center6/29/2000
award. That is, the defendant's right at common law to have the extent of his liability determined by a jury was legislatively altered by the imposition of statutory penalties. While these statutes may not have affected the ability of the plaintiff to recover fully, they nevertheless demonstrate that at the time the Constitution was adopted, the legislature had exercised its power to modify the common law of damages and increase the liability traditionally imposed on certain defendants.
Finally, I.C. § 6-1603 does not violate the right to a jury trial because the statute does not infringe upon the jury's right to decide cases. The jury is still allowed to act as the fact finder in personal injury cases. The statute simply limits the legal consequences of the jury's finding. In Etheridge v. Medical Ctr. Hosps., 376 S.E.2d 525 (Va. 1989), the Virginia Supreme Court held a statute limiting damages awarded in medical malpractice actions constitutional. In so holding, the Virginia Court held "although a party has the right to have a jury assess his damages, he has no right to have a jury dictate through an award the legal consequences of its assessment." Id. at 529. Similarly, in Franklin v. Mazda Motor Corp., 704 F. Supp. 1325 (D.Md. 1989), the federal district court held "a legislature adopting a prospective rule of law that limits all claims for pain and suffering in all cases is not acting as a fact finder in a legal controversy. . . . The right of jury trials in cases at law is not impacted." Id. at 1331. We agree with the decisions of these courts. Nothing in the statute prohibits a plaintiff from presenting his or her full case to the jury and having the jury determine the facts of the case based on the evidence presented at trial. The jury is not instructed about the cap, and is free to make all factual determinations relevant to the case. Once those factual determinations have been made, it is then up to the judge to apply the law to the facts as found by the jury. While some courts have held this procedure simply "plays lip service to the form of the jury but robs the institution of its function," Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 987 P.2d 463, 473 (Or. 1999) (quoting Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 771 P.2d 711, 721 (Wash. 1989)), we disagree. In this case, the Kirklands had a jury trial during which they were entitled to present all of their claims and evidence to the jury and have the jury render a verdict based on that evidence. That is all to which the right to jury entitles them. The legal consequences and effect of a jury's verdict are a matter for the legislature (by passing laws) and the courts (by applying those laws to the facts as found by the jury). Therefore, we hold I.C. § 6-1603 does not violate the right to jury trial as guaranteed by Article I, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution.
B. Idaho Code § 6-1603 does not constitute special legislation.
The Kirklands argue even if I.C. § 6-1603 does not violate the right to jury trial, the statute is nevertheless unconstitutional because it constitutes special legislation in violation of Article III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution. Article III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution states, in pertinent part:
The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say . . .
Releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability or obligation of any person or corporation in this state, or any municipal corporation therein. IDAHO CONST., art. III, § 19.
We have previously held "a legislative enactment is not special legislation when it treats all persons in similar situations alike." Twin Falls Clinic & Hosp. Bldg. Corp. v. Ham
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|