 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schaffer v. Curtis-Perrin3/25/2005
nses sought to be credited. Where the jury's verdict substantially exceeded all the medical expenses Schaffer was seeking, it is fairly certain that the award included the expenses for which Curtis-Perrin seeks a credit. While it may be within the realm of possibility that the jury did not award all of the medical expenses sought, or even part of the specific expenses that are sought to be credited, it is more logical to say that the jury awarded all of the medical expenses sought, including all of those sought to be credited.
It is obvious that no hard and fast rule can be fashioned that will result in absolute certainty in this or any future case. In the final analysis, this is a determination to be properly made in the first instance by the district court, which is best positioned to make a determination based on first-hand observation of the proceedings. Here, the district court made a reasoned decision based on the facts before it and, therefore, we will not second guess the factual determination. While the district court was correct in determining that Curtis-Perrin was entitled to the credit, it allowed a credit in excess of the amount actually paid.
IV. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Curtis-Perrin seeks attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code ยง 12-121 and I.A.R. 41, claiming that "the law regarding credits against a judgment is well-settled and the Appellants have made no substantial showing that the district court misapplied the law." Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371, 973 P.2d 142 (1999). However, we have determined that the district court did not correctly apply the law and, therefore, attorney fees on appeal are inappropriate. Given the mixed outcome of this case, we do not award costs to either party.
V. CONCLUSION
The Order Amending Judgment is vacated in part and the case is remanded. No costs are awarded to either party on appeal.
Chief Justice SCHROEDER, and Justices TROUT, EISMANN and BURDICK, CONCUR.
|