 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DEGRAFF v. WIGHT9/4/1997
This is a personal injury case against Respondents whose dog chased Appellant's horse causing her to fall. The jury found that Appellant was a trespasser and the district court entered a judgment upon a verdict in favor of Respondents. The Appellant argues that the jury was improperly instructed.
I.
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
On May 11, 1992, Appellant Pam DeGraff (DeGraff) was horseback riding in a subdivision off of Eagle Road in Ada County, Idaho. The subdivision had horse corrals and large lots. As DeGraff turned her horse to leave the subdivision, she heard a dog barking and growling and saw a dog coming from Respondents' property. The horse galloped and kicked causing DeGraff to lose the reins and fall, resulting in injury to her.
DeGraff sued Craig Wight and Danett Wight (collectively, the Wights), alleging that the Wights' dog attacked her in a vacant field, causing her severe injuries. DeGraff sought an award of past and future medical and related expenses and costs, general damages, and damages for loss of consortium. The Wights admitted that DeGraff's horse was startled, that she lost control of the horse, and that she fell from her horse. The Wights also admitted that they owned a dog, but alleged that at the time of the incident DeGraff was in a location that was not open to the public and that her unauthorized presence in this location made her a trespasser. The Wights contended that DeGraff trespassed upon their property, initiating the incident. DeGraff contended that she never entered the Wights' property. Both parties agree that DeGraff fell and injured herself on property not owned by either party. There was evidence that the dog had vicious propensities known to the Wights.
Following jury trial, nine of the twelve jurors answered "yes" to question one of the Special Verdict which read: "Was plaintiff Pam DeGraff a trespasser on defendants' property at the time of the occurrence in suit?" The jury was also instructed that " f you have answered question no. 1 `Yes,' you are done." Since a majority of the jurors concluded DeGraff was a trespasser on Respondents' property, the jury found in favor of the Wights.
The district court entered judgment for the Wights based upon the verdict and denied DeGraff's motion for new trial. DeGraff appealed.
II.
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY REGARDING THE AT LARGE DOG ORDINANCE.
DeGraff argues that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding all of the relevant parts of the Ada County Ordinance on "at large" dogs. The district court gave an edited version of the ordinance.
In Brooks v. Gigray Ranches, Inc., 128 Idaho 72, 910 P.2d 744 (1996), this Court stated the appropriate standard of review of jury instructions:
The standard of review when reviewing jury instructions on appeal requires us to determine whether the jury was properly and adequately instructed. Accordingly, we must review the instructions and ascertain whether the instructions, when considered as a whole, fairly and adequately present the issues and state the applicable law.
Id. at 76, 910 P.2d at 748 (quoting Manning v. Twin Falls Clinic & Hosp., 122 Idaho 47, 50, 830 P.2d 1185, 1188 (1992)).
The edited jury instruction regarding dogs at large fairly and adequately presented the issue and stated the applicable law.
III.
INSTRUCTION 10 HAD THE POTENTIAL OF MISLEADING THE JURY AND PREJUDICING DEGRAFF.
The district court stated that in order to conclude DeGraff was a trespasser the jury had to find that she entered upon the Respondent
Page 1 2 3 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|