 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Browning v. Ringel2/24/2000
inds was due exclusively to non-accident causes,] is not clearly erroneous. Browning is not entitled to lost wages during a period of time in which she was already unavailable to work.
F. The Court Did Not Err In Not Making A Finding Regarding The Need For And
Cost Of Housekeeping For Browning As A Result Of The Accident.
Browning argues that it was uncontroverted that the injuries sustained in the accident caused Browning to be unable to do more than the lightest housekeeping at her home, and that these services were provided by her two adult daughters who were paid $50.00 per month since the accident. She contends that the trial court erred in not making a specific finding with respect to this issue of damage.
This argument is meritless. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) does not require such a specific finding. In Quiring v. Quiring, 130 Idaho 560, 944 P.2d 695 (1997), this Court held that ^the specificity of the trial court's findings required by I.R.C.P. 52(a) is not that every factual dispute between the parties must be resolved but, rather, the court's findings need address only those factual issues that are material to resolution of the claims.] Id. at 566, 944 P.2d at 701. In the present case, there was no specific testimony regarding the number of hours worked by Browning's children or details as to the type of work performed. There was also no specific testimony regarding the need for any such services in the future, including no testimony or evidence from a physician. Moreover, the evidence showed that to the extent Browning may be unable to perform a particular housekeeping chore, she is at least as much restricted in that regard from her pre-existing conditions as from any injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, after having reviewed and weighed all the evidence, the district court was free to conclude that Browning did not need housekeeping services and should not need them indefinitely in the future.
V.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms the district court's judgment based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and affirms the district court's memorandum opinion and order denying Browning's motion to alter or amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We award costs on appeal to respondents. No attorney fees on appeal are awarded.
Chief Justice TROUT, Justices SCHRODER and WALTERS, and Justice Pro Tem STEGNER CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|