Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Style: Donetta I. Kafader v. Kimberly A. Baumann
Case Number: 2012 Opinion No. 62
Court: Idaho Court of Appeals on appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County
Plaintiff's Attorney: Clark & Associates, Eagle, for appellant. Eric R. Clark argued.
Defendant's Attorney: Lopez & Kelly, PLLC, Boise, for respondent. Michael E. Kelly argued.
Description: Donetta I. Kafader appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial following a jury verdict in her favor. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Kafader brought this action seeking damages for personal injuries arising from a car collision with Kimberly A. Baumann. On October 28, 2008, Kafader stopped her pickup at a crosswalk for a pedestrian. While driving approximately 10-15 mph, Baumann crashed her sedan into the rear end of Kafader’s pickup. Baumann admitted liability for negligence and the case went to trial regarding the issue of damages.
At trial, Kafader acknowledged a preexisting lower back injury from an employment accident in the late 1970s. Kafader also testified that, in March 2008, she injured her ankle in a grocery store parking lot. Kafader presented a medical bill summary claiming $15,475.72 in damages for treatment of injuries allegedly caused by the collision. Experts testified for both parties regarding Kafader’s preexisting injuries, their effect on her condition following the collision, and the extent to which the collision caused her current symptoms. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Kafader, awarding her $2,787.50 in economic damages and $15,000 in noneconomic damages. Kafader moved the district court for an additur of an unspecific amount1 or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court denied this motion. Kafader appeals.
On appeal, we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion, and we will not disturb that decision absent a manifest abuse of this discretion. Lanham v. Idaho Power Co., 130 Idaho 486, 497-98, 943 P.2d 912, 923-24 (1997); Burggraf v. Chaffin, 121 Idaho 171, 173, 823 P.2d 775, 777 (1991). The test for determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion consists of three inquiries: (1) whether the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the court reached its decision through an exercise of reason. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924. When reviewing the trial court’s decision, we consider the grounds upon which the lower court based its decision to grant or deny the motion. Id. In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for a new trial, “we primarily focus upon the process used by the trial judge in reaching his or her decision, not upon the result of that decision.” Hudelson v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 142 Idaho 244, 248, 127 P.3d 147, 151 (2005); see also Keyser v. Garner, 129 Idaho 112, 119, 922 P.2d 409, 416 (Ct. App. 1996) (appellate court is constrained to focus on the process the trial court used to reach its decision and must refrain from engaging in result-oriented appellate review of the trial court’s discretionary decision).
A. Damages Awarded Under Influence of Passion or Prejudice
Kafader first argues that the district court erred by denying her request for a new trial under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5). That rule authorizes the trial court to grant a new trial where the jury’s award of damages was excessive or inadequate, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. The district court may conditionally grant a new trial subject to an additur. I.R.C.P. 59.1. The proper focus for a trial court when addressing a motion for a new trial based upon inadequate or excessive damages was described by the Idaho Supreme Court in Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 625-26, 603 P.2d 575, 580-81 (1979):
Where a motion for a new trial is premised on inadequate or excessive damages, the trial court must weigh the evidence and then compare the jury’s award to what he would have given had there been no jury. If the disparity is so great that it appears to the trial court that the award was given under the influence of passion or prejudice, the verdict ought not stand. It need not be proven that there was in fact passion or prejudice nor is it necessary to point to such in the record. The appearance of such is sufficient.
It is undisputed that the district court correctly perceived this issue as one of discretion, and we therefore proceed to address whether the district court acted in compliance with the applicable legal standard.
Kafader argues that the district court erred by incorrectly applying the applicable standard and according unwarranted deference to the jury. Specifically, Kafader cites to the order denying her motion in which the district court held that the “credibility of the doctors’ opinions is truly a matter for jury determination” and consistently referred to what the jury may have concluded. Kafader posits this demonstrates the district court did not independently weigh the evidence. Kafader also takes exception to the phraseology used in the district court’s conclusion: “given the finding that the cervical injury was not permanent.” Kafader asserts this reveals the district court was deferring to the jury on the issue of whether the injury was permanent. We agree that the district court deferred to the jury on the issue of whether the injury was permanent and, also, the credibility of the doctors’ opinions.
As the district court recognized, the correct legal standard involves weighing the evidence and then comparing what the district court would have awarded had there been no jury. See Dinneen, 100 Idaho at 625, 603 P.2d at 580. However, the district court seems to have operated under the assumption that credibility of witnesses is a jury function and that, in weighing the evidence, the district court could defer to the jury on such issues. Contrary to this assumption, the Idaho Supreme Court has indicated that, as an initial step, the court must weigh all of the evidence, stating “the court’s weighing process is not merely a right that the court may exercise, but its responsibility--an additional safeguard to reaching a just result.” Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609, 614, 733 P.2d 1234, 1239 (1986).2
Here, although the district court stated that it weighed the evidence, it appears to have skipped the required first step in the analysis by deferring to the jury on the credibility of the doctors’ opinions and the determination on whether the injury was permanent. Kafader was entitled to such an initial weighing of the evidence by the district court. Accordingly, the district court failed to follow the proper legal process in determining whether Kafader should be granted a new trial. Because our primary focus on review is upon the process used by the district court to reach its decision, we hold that it failed to act within the boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standard when it denied Kafader’s motion for a new trial under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5). Therefore, the district court erred in denying Kafader’s motion for a new trial pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5).
B. Insufficiency of Evidence
Kafader next argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for a new trial pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6). Once again, we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial for an abuse of discretion, and we will not disturb that decision absent a manifest abuse of this discretion. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 497-98, 943 P.2d at 923-24; Burggraf, 121 Idaho at 173, 823 P.2d at 777. The same three-part abuse of discretion test set forth above has equal application here. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924. When a motion for a new trial is based on the ground of insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, the trial court must weigh the evidence presented at trial and grant the motion only where the verdict is not in accord with its assessment of the clear weight of the evidence. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924; Pocatello Auto Color, Inc. v. Akzo Coatings, Inc., 127 Idaho 41, 45, 896 P.2d 949, 953 (1995).
In ruling on the motion, the trial court must independently assess the credibility of the witnesses. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924; Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 766, 727 P.2d 1187, 1194 (1986).3 The trial court is not merely authorized to engage in this weighing process, it is obligated to do so. Sanchez, 112 Idaho at 614, 733 P.2d at 1239. The trial court is not required to construe the evidence in favor of the jury verdict. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924; Quick, 111 Idaho at 767, 727 P.2d at 1195. To grant a new trial, the court must apply a two-pronged test: (1) the court must find that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the verdict; and (2) the court must conclude that a retrial would produce a different result. Lanham, 130 Idaho at 498, 943 P.2d at 924; Heitz v. Carroll, 117 Idaho 373, 378, 788 P.2d 188, 193 (1990).
Kafader argues the district court erred by deferring to the jury on the credibility of the doctors’ opinions and on whether the injury was permanent. Kafader relies on the same statements made by the district court set forth above in the Rule 59(a)(5) analysis. Kafader argues that the failure to make an independent evaluation under Rule 59(a)(6) demonstrates the district court failed to act consistent with the legal standard applicable to the motion and abused its discretion.
In its order, the district court recognized that the standards under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5) and (6) are different and that it was required to weigh the evidence, determine whether the verdict was against its view of the clear weight of the evidence, and determine whether a new trial would have produced a different result. It is undisputed that the district court correctly perceived this issue as one of discretion, and we therefore proceed to address whether the district court acted in compliance with the applicable legal standard.
In the district court’s Rule 59(a)(6) analysis, the district court incorporated its analysis from its previous discussion on Rule 59(a)(5). In doing so, it appears the district court still deferred to the jury on the pivotal issue in this case--whether the injury was permanent. The statements by the district court in its order indicate that it simply recognized that there was evidence in support of both parties’ arguments. This is distinct from independently assessing the credibility of the doctors and making its own determination on what verdict it would have returned had there been no jury. Therefore, the district court did not act consistent with the applicable legal standard and erred in denying the motion for new trial under Rule 59(a)(6).4
C. Costs and Attorney Fees
Both parties seek attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. An award of attorney fees may be granted under I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 41 to the prevailing party and such an award is appropriate when the court is left with the abiding belief that the appeal has been brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Rendon v. Paskett, 126 Idaho 944, 945, 894 P.2d 775, 776 (Ct. App. 1995). Because Baumann is not the prevailing party on appeal, she will not be awarded attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. However, the record does not reflect that Baumann defended this appeal frivolously so as to justify the imposition of attorney fees. Although ultimately unsuccessful, Baumann’s arguments were adequately reasonable, with at least some foundation. Therefore, attorney fees will not be awarded to Kafader under I.C. § 12-121. Costs are awarded to Kafader as the prevailing party.
* * *
Outcome: The district court abused its discretion in denying Kafader’s motion for additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial by failing to independently assess the credibility of the doctors and make a determination on whether the injury was permanent. Accordingly, the district court’s order is reversed and the case is remanded for reconsideration of that motion, using the appropriate standard. Neither party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal. However, costs are awarded to appellant Kafader.