 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BLOME v. TRUSKA9/5/1997
sion, as our basic tenets of statutory construction direct, Dohl v. PSF Indus., Inc., 127 Idaho 232, 237, 899 P.2d 445, 450 (1995); J.R. Simplot Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 120 Idaho 849, 854, 820 P.2d 1206, 1211 (1991); Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 571-72, 798 P.2d 27, 30-31 (1990), they reveal a broader and more comprehensive scheme than what Blome urges. A clear reading of the enactment shows that Section 1 addresses those situations involving one plaintiff and one defendant. Section 2 contemplates co-parties as is evidenced by the legislature's use of the term "any party" rather than "either party." Section 3 addresses the right of contribution among co-parties. This completes a statutory scheme that encompasses the resolution of rights among multiple defendants as well as between a plaintiff and a defendant.
This enactment is not limited to the situation in which the plaintiff is alleged to be at fault. Such a narrow reading would not effectuate the intent of the legislature. In Hickman, this Court held that it was not error to exclude a non-party from the special verdict form when the plaintiff was not alleged to be at fault. 114 Idaho at 548, 758 P.2d at 707. That case dealt with one plaintiff and one defendant. The language contained in that opinion is premised upon the particular facts of the case dealing with who should be included on the verdict form when the inclusion of the non-party would have no
effect upon the outcome. It did not address the case in which there are multiple defendants who may seek contribution from one another. The language in section 6-802 (1971) does not exclude "any party" from requesting a special verdict form when the plaintiff is not negligent. Contemporaneous enactment of section 6-801 through section 6-803, envisioning a comprehensive treatment of the rights of parties involved in a negligence action, refutes Blome's arguments to the contrary.
V.
THE STATE COURT SYSTEM IS NOT THE PROPER FORUM TO CHALLENGE THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED IN MARCHAND.
No cross-claims were filed in Marchand, and the co-defendants were limited to some extent in their presentation of evidence against co-defendants. Consequently, Blome argues that it would be unfair to hold him to the apportionment of fault assigned on the special verdict form. However, the record shows that the parties were highly cognizant of the possibility that the jury would apportion fault. The defendants raised co-defendant liability as an affirmative defense. Truksa and another defendant requested apportionment. The parties briefed and argued the issue. Blome could not be surprised that the jury was instructed to apportion fault. If Blome was frustrated in the presentation of his case by the ruling limiting presentation of evidence against a co-defendant, the appropriate course of action was to appeal that ruling in the federal system, not to bring a separate action for reapportionment in the state system.
Truksa requested apportionment of fault pursuant to I.C. ยง 6-802, and the Marchand jury apportioned fault notwithstanding the verdict form's "advisory" language. That apportionment is binding.
VI.
CONCLUSION.
The district court's ruling is reversed. Fault was apportioned in Marchand establishing the parties' rights of contribution. Truksa is awarded costs on appeal. No attorney fees are awarded.
TROUT, C.J., JOHNSON and McDEVITT,[fn*], JJ., and MAY, Justice Pro Tem., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|