Blackmon v. Zufelt
| Decision Date | 23 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 15103,15103 |
| Citation | 108 Idaho 469,700 P.2d 91 |
| Parties | Harry BLACKMON and Sharon Blackmon, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kolen ZUFELT and LaVera Zufelt, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Brent T. Robinson, Ling, Nielsen & Robinson, Rupert, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Stanley G. Cole, Rupert, for defendants-respondents.
This dispute arises from the untimely demise of a nomadic bull. Harry and Sharon Blackmon sued their neighbors, Kolen and LaVera Zufelt, after Mr. Zufelt found the Blackmons' bull in his front yard and shot it. A magistrate, sitting in the small claims department, awarded damages to the Blackmons. The Zufelts appealed to the district court, where the case was reexamined de novo. Upon the Zufelts' motion, the district judge entered summary judgment against the Blackmons' complaint. This appeal followed. We reverse and remand.
The sole issue is whether the summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact. The materiality of a fact is determined by its relationship to legal theories presented by the parties. Here, the Blackmons' legal theory of recovery was that a person has no right to destroy livestock, even if an animal intrudes upon his property, unless it poses a danger to person or property. This theory is not controverted on appeal. Consequently, the danger, if any, posed by the bull is a fact material to the outcome.
The only direct evidence of events leading to the bull's death was furnished by Kolen Zufelt. Mr. Zufelt stated in an affidavit that he encountered the bull as he drove a car into his driveway, followed by other persons in a pickup truck. When Zufelt and the others exited their vehicles, the bull charged. All parties quickly reentered the vehicles. However, the bull's attention was momentarily diverted, giving Zufelt the opportunity to make his way into the house. He returned with a .357 magnum revolver and fired into the air to frighten the animal. However, the bull charged again and Zufelt shot him. A veterinarian was summoned but he deemed it necessary to dispose of the animal.
Although the Blackmons were not present at the shooting, they contested Zufelt's account of the circumstances. Sharon Blackmon submitted an affidavit stating that the bull had a reputation as a gentle creature and had served as a playful companion to the Blackmons' children. Mrs. Blackmon also stated that during prior incidents when livestock had strayed, Mr. Zufelt had threatened to shoot the intruding animals and had fired his pistol to scare them.
Thus, the district judge was faced with a choice between direct and circumstantial evidence. The Zufelts' direct evidence, if accepted, showed that the bull posed a danger. The Blackmons' circumstantial evidence, if accepted, could have supported an inference that the bull did not pose a danger but was shot because it was an intruder.
In general, a party resisting a motion for summary judgment is entitled to a favorable view of conflicting evidence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loomis v. City of Hailey
...be drawn from uncontroverted evidentiary facts. Riverside Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (1982); Blackmon v. Zufelt, 108 Idaho 469, 700 P.2d 91 (Ct.App.1985). In the present action neither party has claimed that any genuine issues of material fact exist. We have reviewed t......
-
Newgen v. OK Livestock Exchange
...to be drawn from uncontroverted facts. Riverside Development Co. v. Ritchie, 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (1982); Blackmon v. Zufelt, 108 Idaho 469, 700 P.2d 91 (Ct.App.1985). Applying this principle, the district court concluded that "cull privileges to remove nonproductive cows from said h......
-
Kaupp v. City of Hailey
..."The materiality of a fact is determined by its relationship to legal theories presented by the parties." Blackmon v. Zufelt, 108 Idaho 469, 470, 700 P.2d 91, 92 (Ct.App.1985). To establish a prescriptive easement, the claimant must "submit 'reasonably clear and convincing' proof of open, n......
- AT & T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Little Rock