Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center
Decision Date | 29 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 26044.,26044. |
Citation | 134 Idaho 464,4 P.3d 1115 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Order Certifying Questions of Law. Bryce Quinn KIRKLAND, a minor, by and through his parents and guardians, Quinn Kirkland and Sandy Kirkland, husband and wife, and Quinn Kirkland and Sandy Kirkland, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BLAINE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER dba Wood River Medical Center, Ian Ross Donald, M.D., Defendants-Appellants. and Randall Coriell, Defendant. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Roark, Donovan, Praggastis, Rivers & Phillips, Ketchum; Tolman Law Office, Twin Falls, for appellants. Steven K. Tolman argued.
Jones, Gledhill, Hess, Andrews, Fuhrman, Bradbury & Eiden, PA, Boise; Luvera, Barnett, Brindley, Seattle, for respondents. Bradley G. Andrews argued.
This appeal arises from a request for certification of issues from the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho, the Honorable Edward J. Lodge, in a diversity case tried under Idaho law. Respondents argue I.C. § 6-1603 violates the Idaho Constitution because it infringes on the plaintiffs' right to trial by jury, constitutes special legislation, and violates the separation of powers doctrine. Appellants contend I.C. § 6-1603 is constitutional and should be applied to limit the liability of the defendants in this case. We accepted certification, established a briefing schedule, and set the case for oral argument. We now answer the certified question and, for the reasons set forth below, hold I.C. § 6-1603 is constitutional under the Idaho Constitution.
I.
This case arises from a medical malpractice case tried in federal district court under Idaho law. The plaintiffs (collectively "the Kirklands"), Sandy and Quinn Kirkland, brought the action on their own behalf, and on behalf of their son, Bryce Kirkland, against Wood River Medical Center and Dr. Ian Ross Donald (collectively "WRMC") seeking recovery for injuries to Bryce arising out of the medical care provided to Sandy Kirkland at Wood River Medical Center. At trial, the jury returned a total verdict of $29,715,077, including $11,215,077 in economic damages and $15,000,000 in noneconomic damages in favor of Bryce Kirkland. The award also included another $3,500,000 in noneconomic damages in favor of Sandy and Quinn Kirkland. The jury apportioned 25% of the responsibility for Bryce's injuries to the Wood River Medical Center, and 75% to Dr. Donald.
After trial, the Kirklands filed a motion asking the federal district judge to declare I.C. § 6-1603 unconstitutional under the Idaho Constitution. I.C. § 6-1603 provides:
I.C. § 6-1603 (1998). If applied to this case, I.C. § 6-1603 would limit Bryce Kirkland's recovery of noneconomic damages against WRMC to approximately $573,000, instead of the $3,750,000 award by the jury. Because the jury specifically found Dr. Donald to have acted recklessly, the cap on noneconomic damages found in I.C. § 6-1603 would not apply to limit his liability to the Kirklands. In the federal district court, the Kirklands argued I.C. § 6-1603 is unconstitutional as (1) a violation of the right to jury trial; (2) special legislation; (3) a violation of the separation of powers doctrine; and (4) as a violation of due process. After briefing and argument, the federal district judge agreed to certify the first three questions of Idaho constitutional law to this Court regarding the validity of I.C. § 6-1603. We accepted certification and now answer.
III.
Federal courts may certify in writing to this Court a question of law asking for a declaratory judgment or decree adjudicating the Idaho law on such a question if the certified question is a controlling question of law and there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of this Court. I.A.R. 12.1. This case requires this Court to decide the constitutionality of I.C. § 6-1603. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. Meisner v. Potlatch Co., 131 Idaho 258, 260, 954 P.2d 676, 678 (1998); Harris v. State, Dept. of Health and Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 297, 847 P.2d 1156, 1158 (1992).
IV.
The Kirklands argue I.C. § 6-1603 violates the right to jury trial as guaranteed by Article I, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution because it denies plaintiffs the right to have a jury determine the amount of noneconomic damages incurred by tort victims. Article I, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution provides:
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but in civil actions, three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict, and the legislature may provide that in all cases of misdemeanors five-sixths of the jury may render a verdict. A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of all parties, expressed in open court, and in civil actions by the consent of the parties, signified in such manner as may be prescribed by law. In civil actions the jury may consist of twelve or any number less than twelve upon which the parties may agree in open court. Provided, that in cases of misdemeanor and in civil actions within the jurisdiction of any court inferior to the district court, whether such case or action be tried in such inferior court or in district court, the jury shall consist of not more than six.
IDAHO CONST. art. I, § 7. In State v. Bennion, 112 Idaho 32, 730 P.2d 952 (1986), we noted this Court "long and often has stated that Article 1, § 7 preserves the right to jury trial as it existed at the common law and under the territorial statutes when the Idaho Constitution was adopted." Bennion, 112 Idaho at 37, 730 P.2d at 957. This standard "embodies the common sense notion that, by employing the phrase `shall remain inviolate,' the Framers must have intended to perpetuate the right as it existed in 1890." Id. In Idaho Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Free, 126 Idaho 422, 885 P.2d 381 (1994), this Court reiterated the principles embodied in Bennion. Free involved a civil forfeiture case brought under I.C. § 37-2744A. The appellants argued I.C. § 37-2744A was unconstitutional because it denied a jury trial in civil forfeiture proceedings. In holding I.C. § 37-2744A unconstitutional, this Court first determined whether the right to jury trial in civil forfeiture actions existed at the time the Idaho Constitution was adopted. After determining civil forfeitures existed, and were afforded a right to jury trial at common law when the Idaho Constitution was adopted, this Court held I.C. § 37-2744A unconstitutional because it denied that right. Free, 126 Idaho at 425-27, 885 P.2d at 384-86.
In the case at hand, the Kirklands urge this Court to hold I.C. § 6-1603 unconstitutional because it denies them the right to jury trial as it existed in 1890. The Kirklands correctly note that, at the time of the adoption of the Idaho Constitution, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Idaho had already recognized a jury's right to award general compensatory damages. In Cox v. North-Western Stage Co., 1 Idaho 376 (Id. Terr.1871), the Supreme Court of the Territory of Idaho affirmed a jury's award of $15,000 in general damages and $280 in special damages to a plaintiff injured while a passenger on a stage coach. In response to the defendant's argument the verdict was not supported by the evidence, the Court noted that in order to find for the plaintiff, the jury must have determined the plaintiff was severely injured due to the negligence of the stage driver, and the plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $15,280. The Court went on to say Id. at 383. Additionally, the Court rejected the defendant's argument the damage award was disproportionate to the injuries suffered, noting it was the special province of the jury to determine the extent of the plaintiff's damage. In so holding, the Court noted "[a] jury of twelve good and lawful men have said by their verdict, that this plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of fifteen thousand two hundred and eighty dollars, and we do not think that, under the law and facts, we would be justified in saying that they were not correct, as well as honest, in their judgment." Id. at 386. Therefore, it is clear as early as 1871 the Territory of Idaho recognized the right of the jury to assess and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Verba v. Ghaphery
...P.2d 665, 211 Cal. Rptr. 368 (1985); Scharrel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 949 P.2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997); Kirkland v. Blaine County Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 464, 4 P.3d 1115 (2000); Bova v. Roig, 604 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 789 P.2d ......
-
ATLANTA OCULOPLASTIC SURGERY v. Nestlehutt
...result. See, e.g., Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 880 N.E.2d 420(III)(A)(1) (2007); Kirkland v. Blaine County Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 464, 4 P.3d 1115(IV)(A) (2000); Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102(III) Because of our holding that the caps violate the right to tr......
-
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
...(Colo.2004), 95 P.3d 571); Florida (Mizrahi v. Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd. (Fla.2000), 761 So.2d 1040); Idaho (Kirkland v. Blaine Cty. Med. Ctr. (2000), 134 Idaho 464, 4 P.3d 1115); Indiana (Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc. (1980), 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585); Kansas (Samsel v. Wheeler Transp......
-
Macdonald v. City Hosp. Inc.
...in medical malpractice actions; right to trial by jury, separation of powers, and equal protection); Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center, 134 Idaho 464, 4 P.3d 1115 (2000) ($400,000 in personal injury cases; right to trial by jury, special legislation, and separation of powers); Samsel......
-
Where Do We Go from Here? the Future of Caps on Noneconomic Medical Malpractice Damages in Georgia
...65. Arbino, 880 N.E.2d at 431; Judd, 103 P.3d at 146. 66. See, e.g., Arbino, 880 N.E.2d at 432; Kirkland v. Blaine Cnty. Med. Ctr., 4 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Idaho 2000) ("The legal consequences and effect of a jury's verdict are a matter for the legislature (by 1350 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW R......
-
The Limitations of Legislatively Imposed Damages Caps: Proposing a Better Way to Control the Costs of Medical Malpractice
...party of the limitations set forth in section 1483 or any other provision of section 1483."). 122. Zdrojewski, 657 N.W.2d at 737. 123. 4 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Idaho 124. Idaho Code Ann. § 6-1603 (1998). 125. Idaho Const, art. I, § 7. 126. Kirkland, 4 P.3d at 1120 (citing Etheridge v. Med. Ctr. H......
-
Caps Off to Juries: Noneconomic Damage Caps in Medical Malpractice Cases Ruled Unconstitutional - Jennifer W. Terry
...P.2d 463, 472-73 (Or. 1999); Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 771 P.2d 711, 720 (Wash. 1989). 60. See, e.g., Kirkland v. Blaine Cnty. Med. Ctr., 4 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Idaho 2000); Murphy v. Edmonds, 601 A.2d 102, 116-17 (Md. 1992); Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420, 431 (Ohio 2007). 61. Se......
-
Michael H. Leroy, Pox Americana? Vaccinating More Emergency Doctors for Smallpox: a Law and Economics Approach to Work Conditions
...767 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1985). 185 Scholz v. Metro Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (Colo. 1993). 186 Kirkland v. Blaine County Med. Ctr., 4 P.3d 1115 (Idaho 2000). 187 Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Bair v. Peck, 811 P.2d 117......