Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 22917

Decision Date09 June 1997
Docket NumberNo. 22917,22917
Citation939 P.2d 1382,130 Idaho 303
PartiesBill ANSON and Donna Anson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LES BOIS RACE TRACK, INC., an Idaho corporation; the Directors of Les Bois Race Track, Inc., Chris L. Christian, Paul K. Girdner, Brice Underdahl, Kenneth Anderson, individually, and Duayne Didericksen, General Manager, Defendants-Respondents. Boise, February 1997 Term
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Kenneth F. White, Nampa, Peter J. Boyd (argued), Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants.

James R. Gillespie, Boise, for defendants-respondents.

McDEVITT, Justice.

This is an action in tort. Appellants seek to recover damages from respondents for injuries to appellants' race horse. The district court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment based upon a "Release of Liability" (Release).

Appellants Bill and Donna Anson (Anson) filed a complaint against the above-named respondents alleging respondents negligently supervised their employees, negligently failed to provide proper training to its employees, and negligently wrapped the tail of a horse owned by Anson around a gate while training the horse in gate starting. Anson alleged respondents' negligence was the proximate cause of injuries suffered by the horse owned by Anson. 1

Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the Release was signed by Anson and that the Release relieved respondents from liability for the injuries suffered by the horse owned by Anson. Anson argued that the district court should deny respondents' motion for summary judgment since the Release that was signed by Anson was an illegal contract and that Anson had no discretion in signing the Release, since the Release had to be signed before any horse could be brought upon the Les Bois Racetrack premises. Anson also argued that the Release was not enforceable due to a lack of consideration.

On February 22, 1996, the district court heard arguments regarding respondents' motion for summary judgment. The district court entered a memorandum decision and order on February 26, 1996, ruling that respondents were entitled to summary judgment. The district court found that allowing Anson to enter the premises and participate in training and racing was sufficient consideration for the Release. The district court rejected the argument that the Release was voidable due to economic duress. Final judgment granting respondents' motion for summary judgment was entered on March 6, 1996.

Anson filed a motion for relief from order and a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative a motion to amend the complaint. A hearing was held on May 8, 1996, regarding the motions filed by Anson. The district court denied the motions filed by Anson. 2 Anson timely filed an appeal to this Court.

The only two arguments presented by Anson in response to respondents' motion for summary judgment, prior to the March 6, 1996 order granting summary judgment, were: (1) the Release did not contain adequate consideration and (2) the contract was voidable due to economic duress. These are the only two issues that Anson properly preserved for appeal.

On appeal, Anson argues that the Release was void as a matter of public policy and that Anson did not assume the risk of negligence by signing the Release.

Anson has failed to address the issues properly before this Court. In State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 923 P.2d 966 (1996), this Court stated:

When issues on appeal are not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument, they will not be considered.... A party waives an issue cited on appeal if either...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. v. Nielson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 31, 2001
    ...unreasonably, and without foundation." Stanley v. McDaniel, 134 Idaho 630, 7 P.3d 1107 (2000) (citing Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 130 Idaho 303, 305, 939 P.2d 1382, 1384 (1997)); I.C. § 12-121. Where an appeal turns on questions of law, an award of attorney fees under this section i......
  • Hurtado v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 29, 2012
    ...State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10, 16, 175 P.3d 172, 178 (2007) (ellipsis original) (quoting Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 130 Idaho 303, 304, 939 P.2d 1382, 1383 (1997) ). While Land O'Lakes mentions the issue in its briefing, it makes no argument. We therefore conclude that ......
  • Davis v. Peacock, 24463.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1999
    ...on Appeal. The Davises have requested that they be awarded attorney fees for this appeal and have cited Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 130 Idaho 303, 305, 939 P.2d 1382, 1384 (1997) in support of their argument. Anson involved an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-1......
  • Wooley Trust v. DeBest Plumbing, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1999
    ...belief that the appeal was brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation. See Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 130 Idaho 303, 305, 939 P.2d 1382, 1384 (1997). Phillippi Plaza's appeal was not brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably and without foundation. Ther......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT