Hurtado v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 153 Idaho 13

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for J & J Calf Ranch in a products liability action involving allegedly defective milk replacer that was claimed to have caused the deaths of dairy calves. The court held that Land O'Lakes waived its challenges to expert testimony and that substantial and competent evidence supported the jury's findings on liability and damages. The court also upheld the district court's limitation of attorney fees and declined to award fees or costs on appeal to either party.

Holdings

1. An appellant waives an issue on appeal when it fails to support the issue with adequate authority and argument. When challenging an evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion, the appellant must argue both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the error affected a substantial right.
2. When a products-liability claim is based on circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff must show that the product malfunctioned and that there were no other reasonably likely causes of the malfunction, but need not exclude every possible cause. A jury verdict must be upheld when substantial and competent evidence and reasonable inferences support that finding.
3. The exact amount of damages need not be proved, but the evidence must establish the amount with reasonable certainty and remove it from speculation. An owner is competent to testify to the value of destroyed livestock, and the credibility and weight of that testimony are for the jury.
4. A district court may exercise discretion in determining whether and how to calculate attorney fees incurred during different phases of litigation, provided it applies the applicable legal standards and considers the factors in I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3). The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding most fees from the pretrial period and first trial.
5. Neither party was entitled to attorney fees or costs on appeal because both parties prevailed in part on the appeal and cross-appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Land O'Lakes preserved and properly presented its challenge to the qualification and admission of J & J's expert testimony.
2. Whether the admission of the expert testimony warranted relief when Land O'Lakes did not argue that the alleged error affected a substantial right.
3. Whether substantial and competent evidence supported the jury's finding that J & J excluded other reasonably likely causes of the calf deaths.
4. Whether substantial and competent evidence supported the amount of damages awarded for the lost calves.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding attorney fees incurred before and during the first trial.
6. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees or costs on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed