Donald B. Anderson

In Grant v. Clarke, plaintiff Sadie Grant sued her daughter Marie Yotz and driver Frank Clarke for personal injuries from a nighttime head-on collision on U.S. Highway 30, alleging that both vehicles crossed the center line and that Yotz drove with reckless disregard under the guest statute while Clarke was negligent. The trial court denied Grant's late motion to amend her complaint to drop the guest allegation and assert ordinary negligence or last-clear-chance against Yotz, granted a nonsuit in Yotz's favor, and submitted questions of joint enterprise and contributory negligence to the jury, which returned a verdict for Clarke. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the amendment was untimely and would have changed the theory of the case, that the sheriff's opinion testimony on the point of impact was properly admitted based on his experience, and that the joint-enterprise issue was properly submitted; it therefore affirmed both judgments. The case centered on application of the guest statute, evidentiary rulings, and imputation of negligence in an automobile accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved adjoining landowners where the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' private driveway, used as a levee for an irrigation pumping pond, created a nuisance by backing up water and flooding about six to eight acres of the plaintiffs' pasture land. The defendants argued they had acquired a prescriptive easement to maintain the driveway and flood the land through open, notorious, and adverse use over more than five years. The trial court found that the flooding had only begun in 1952, less than five years before the suit was filed, so no prescriptive right had been established, and it ordered the defendants to abate the nuisance by installing a larger culvert while awarding $1,500 in damages for the permanent reduction in the land's value. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's factual findings on the timing of the flooding were supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed, and that the measure of damages as the difference in market value was appropriate given the lack of evidence on mitigation.

propertytorts & liability

This case concerns custody of two minor children after their parents' 1953 divorce in Missouri, where the father initially received custody and the mother received weekend visitation. After the father moved with the children to Idaho without prior notice, the mother obtained a Missouri court order vacating the father's custody and then filed this action in Idaho seeking custody herself. The district court awarded custody to the father with visitation rights to the mother. The court treated the proceeding as an original custody determination (since neither parent held a current decree) and held that the children's welfare and best interests are paramount, neither parent was unfit, the children were thriving in their current environment, and the father had not abused his discretion in the award.

family law

This case is a declaratory judgment action concerning the parties' rights under a May 12, 1945 contract that settled the plaintiff's prior claims for compensation related to a 1943 mining lease and option agreement on claims in Lemhi County, Idaho. The contract provided the plaintiff with percentages of installment payments and one-sixth of royalties from the lessee, later assigned to Calera Mining Company; after the lessee agreed to higher minimum quarterly royalties in exchange for operational delays, a dispute arose over whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the increases. The district court held the 1945 contract clear and unambiguous, ruled the plaintiff entitled to one-sixth of the increased royalties plus interest, and ordered the defendants to execute an assignment allowing direct payment from the mining company. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the contract language required no jury interpretation, that proposed amendments alleging lack of consideration or illegality were properly denied as conclusory and untimely, and that the assignment was appropriate to prevent multiple actions.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a default judgment in a lawsuit to foreclose on a real estate purchase contract after the buyers allegedly defaulted on payments. The defendants' attorneys filed a demurrer but failed to appear at the hearing due to one being on vacation, leading to its withdrawal with time to answer; no answer was filed, and default judgment was entered. The defendants later moved to set aside the default under Idaho Code § 5-905, citing their attorneys' mistake, inadvertence, and neglect, and tendered a proposed answer claiming breach by the sellers. The district court denied the motion, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statute mandates relief from a default when it results from an attorney's failure to file or serve papers timely, regardless of the court's discretion in other circumstances.

procedureproperty

The case involved a property owner seeking a writ of mandate to compel the City of Moscow to enforce a 1933 zoning ordinance setting building setback lines based on the average distance of existing houses on the same block, in order to require neighbors to move or remove their newly built residence. After the trial court dismissed the petition, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance was invalid. The core reasoning was that the ordinance violated Idaho Code § 50-402 by failing to provide uniform regulations for buildings throughout each zoning district, as setback lines could vary between blocks, sides of the street, or even change over time as new houses were built.

property