 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
TUTTLE v. WAYMENT FARMS6/17/1997
SUBSTITUTE OPINION THE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION DATED MAY 1, 1997, IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN.
This appeal is taken from several post-trial orders in Daryl Tuttle's personal injury action against the manufacturer of a grain auger, the installer of the auger, and the employer who hired Tuttle to operate the auger on a dairy farm in Burley, Idaho. Tuttle contends that the damage award against the employer, Wayment Farms, Inc., was inadequate or, alternatively, was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. He asserts that the award was erroneously reduced, first, by a finding that he was 40% negligent and second, by applying as an offset the amount paid to him in settlement by the installer, Wes's Inc., prior to trial. He also asserts that the trial court erred in ordering the payment of costs to the manufacturer, Sudenga Industries, Inc., from the monies paid in satisfaction of the judgment by Wayment Farms, Inc. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court orders denying additur or a new trial and the order for payment of Sudenga's costs, but we reverse the district court's decision granting the offset for the settlement payment.
The facts surrounding Tuttle's accident, which resulted in serious injuries to Tuttle's feet, and the proceedings leading up to the trial in this case are set forth in Tuttle v. Sudenga Industries, Inc., 125 Idaho 145, 868 P.2d 473 (1993). By the time of trial in March of 1995, Tuttle had accepted a settlement offer from one of the defendants, Wes's Inc. That defendant was then dismissed from the lawsuit. Wes's Inc. was nevertheless listed on the special verdict form, and the jury determined liability as follows:
Party Percent of Liability
Wayment Farms, Inc. 60% Sudenga Industries, Inc. 0% Wes's Inc. 0% Daryl Tuttle 40%
The jury awarded damages in the amount of $175,000, but this amount was reduced in accordance with Tuttle's proportion of negligence. Tuttle's motion for additur or new trial was denied. The trial court then granted Wayment Farms' motion to treat the settlement from Wes's Inc. as an offset, further reducing the damage award. Tuttle appealed from these post-trial orders. Following the trial court's order awarding payment of costs to Sudenga Industries from the judgment amount paid into the court by Wayment Farms, Tuttle filed an amended notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Motion for New Trial or Additur
In his motion for new trial, Tuttle asserted, under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6), that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict, in particular the assessment of 40% negligence to him. Under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5), Tuttle asserted that the damage award was inadequate and urged as an alternative that the trial court grant an additur.
The denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. We will uphold the decision of the trial court ruling on a motion for new trial unless the court has manifestly abused the wide discretion vested in it. Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 770, 727 P.2d 1187, 1198 (1986). To ascertain whether the trial court abused its discretion, we review the circumstances of the case and the grounds upon which the trial court based its decision. Sheets v. Agro-West, Inc., 104 Idaho 880, 884, 664 P.2d 787, 791 (Ct. App. 1983). In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court, this Court must consider (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, (2) whether the trial court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices, and (3) whether the trial court reached its dec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|