Joiner et al v. Allen et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ELIZABETH JOINER and JENNIFER
JOINER,

Case No. 4:14-cv-00042-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHELLE ALLEN, PUBLIC
HEALTH DISTRICT #6, and the STATE
OF IDAHO,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are Defendants Michelle Allen and the State of Idaho’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8) and Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion for
summary judgment with respect to Defendant Michelle Allen and the Public Health
District #6 but will grant the request to dismiss the State of Idaho.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident occurring on October 31, 2011, and
involving Michelle Allen. At the time of the accident, Jennifer Joiner was driving
northbound on I-15 near Blackfoot, Idaho. Her mother, Elizabeth Joiner, was riding in the
front seat. As they were traveling on the interstate, the clutch failed, causing the vehicle
to lose speed. When this happened, Jennifer, who was driving in the right-hand lane,
turned on the car’s hazard lights. Noticing the hazard lights and Jennifer’s slow speed,
Jess Cox, an Idaho Transportation Driver, turned on his emergency lights to warn other
vehicles while he drove on the right shoulder.
Allen, driving a Public Health District #6 vehicle, was also traveling northbound
on I-15. As she approached Mr. Cox’s vehicle traveling on the right-hand shoulder,
Allen apparently did not slow down but instead passed him in the right lane despite his
flashing lights. Allen could not react in time to slow speed of the Joiner car, also traveling
northbound in the right lane, and she slammed into the rear of the car at 75 mph. The
impact caused the Joiner car to roll several times before resting on its left side in the right
roadside area. Allen’s vehicle came to an uncontrolled stop in the roadway between the
travel lanes of I-15. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ¶ ¶ 1, 3, 7, Dkt. 1-2.
Seeking damages for injuries arising from the accident, Jennifer Joiner and
Elizabeth Joiner have sued the Public Health District #6, the State of Idaho, and Michelle
Allen. Defendants filed a summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims against
Defendant Allen and the State. They later amended their motion to add a new argument

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

seeking dismissal of the District as well. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs failed to
file a timely Notice of Tort Claim against Michelle Allen, as required by Idaho Code § 6906. Second, Defendants argue that the claims against the State of Idaho are “baseless”
because Allen was not a State of Idaho employee on October 31, 2011, and the vehicle
she was driving was not owned by or registered to the State of Idaho. And, third,
Defendants argue that all they all should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to state the
amount of damages they seek to claim.
ANALYSIS
1.

Notice of Tort Claim
As a prerequisite to suing a public entity or public employee for money damages,

the Idaho Tort Claims Act requires presentation of the claim to the entity within 180 days
from the date the claim arose. I.C. § 6-906. The presented claim must meet the
requirements of section 6-907 of the Act. I.C. § 6-907. Section 6-907 requires the
claimant to “accurately describe the conduct and circumstances which brought about the
injury or damage, describe the injury or damage, state the time and place the injury or
damage occurred, state the names of all persons involved, if known, and [state] the
amount of damages claimed.” Id. A notice of claim “shall not be held invalid or
insufficient by reason of an inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the
claim, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the governmental entity was in fact misled to
its injury thereby.” Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

On January 6, 2012, Elizabeth Joiner filed her Notice of Tort Claim with the
secretary or clerk of the Public Health District #6. Porter Aff. ¶ 4. A few months later, on
April 4, 2012, Jennifer Joiner filed her Notice of Tort Claim with the secretary or clerk of
the Public Health District #6. Id. ¶ 5. Both notice of tort claims, in describing the
conduct and circumstances of the accident, named Michelle Allen, acting within the
course and scope of her employment, as the driver of the Public Health District # 6
vehicle that “slammed into the rear” of the Joiners’ jeep. Exs. 1 & 2 to Porter Aff.
Although Elizabeth and Jennifer filed timely notices – both of which named Allen
as the driver – with the District, Defendants argue Allen should be dismissed because
neither Elizabeth nor Jennifer provided direct notice to Allen. Defendants, however, cite
no cases mandating dismissal of a tort claim against a public employee for a plaintiff’s
failure to provide separate notice to the involved employee. And nothing in the statutory
language requires a claimant to file multiple notices with the entity and any involved
employees.
To the contrary, section 6-906 states that all claims against a political subdivision
or an employee of a political subdivision “shall be presented to and filed with the clerk or
secretary of the political subdivision.” I.C. 6-906 (emphasis added). The fact that both
notices to the entity and to involved employees must be filed with the entity suggests that
one notice to the entity, naming all involved employees, suffices to place both the entity
and the employees on notice. It would accomplish little to make a claimant file with the
public entity two identical but separate notices naming the involved employee. Because

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

separate notices would further no real purpose, Elizabeth and Jennifer Joiner’s failure to
provide a separate, direct notice to Allen is not fatal to their tort claims against Allen.
Likewise, Elizabeth and Jennifer’s failure to state the amount of damages in their
notice does not warrant dismissal of their claims. Again, Defendants do not cite any case
mandating the dismissal of a tort claim against a government entity or its employee
because the claimant did not know the amount of damages at the time of filing notice. In
fact, the Idaho Supreme Court has suggested failure to state the exact amount of damages
would be improper grounds for dismissal. See, e.g., Magnuson Properties Partnership v.
City of Coeur d'Alene, 59 P.3d 971, 975 (Idaho 2002); Farber v. State, 630 P.2d 685, 689
(Idaho 1981).
In Magnuson Properties, for example, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the 180day notice period begins to run at the occurrence of a wrongful act – even if the extent of
damages is not known or is unpredictable at the time. 59 P.3d at 975. As explained by
the Magnuson court, “[a] claimant is not required to know all facts and details of a claim
because such a prerequisite would allow a claimant to delay completion of their
investigation before triggering the notice requirement.” Id. And in Farber, the Idaho
Supreme Court refused to apply a strict or literal interpretation of ITCA’s notice
requirements because such an interpretation “would result in denying the legitimate
claims of those who have suffered injury at the hands of the state, without furthering in
the least the legislative purposes behind the statute.” 630 P.2d at 689.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Admittedly, including the amount of damages in the notice could facilitate the
parties’ reaching an “amicable resolution” without filing a lawsuit. But often times it is
impossible to know the amount of damages without consulting an expert. In this case,
Plaintiffs offered as much information regarding their injuries as they reasonably could.
Elizabeth Joiner listed her injuries as “closed head injury, memory loss, C-1 and T-12
fractures, rib fractures, radiating pain in both arms, and neck/back/head pain," and
Jennifer Joiner listed her injuries as "closed head injury, memory & cognitive loss, neck,
back, and shoulder injuries." Both Elizabeth and Jennifer continue to be treated for their
injuries by various medical professionals, and the full extent of their damages is still not
known. Given these uncertainties, it would be unfair to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims because
the full extent of their damages was not known at the time they filed their notices. C.f.,
Magnuson, 59 P.3d at 975.
2.

The State
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss the claims against the State. The State

submits the affidavit of Tyler Butler to prove that Allen was an employee of the District –
not the State – at the time of the accident, and the vehicle she was driving was owned by
the District, and not the State. Butler Aff. ¶¶ 6, 7. Based on the affidavit and testimony of
Tyler Butler, Plaintiffs do not oppose the State’s dismissal from this lawsuit.
3.

Attorney Fees
Plaintiffs request attorney fees on the grounds that Defendants’ motions for

summary judgment were frivolous. The Court disagrees. Defendants offered reasonable

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

argumen in suppo of their motions. Th Court wi therefore deny Plain
nts
ort
m
he
ill
e
ntiffs’ reque
est
for fees.
ORDER
O
T
ERED:
IT IS ORDE
1.

Defen
ndants Mich
helle Allen and the Sta of Idaho Motion f Partial
ate
o’s
for
Summ
mary Judgm (Dkt. 8) is GRAN
ment
8
NTED in pa and DENIED in part.
art

2.

Defen
ndants’ Am
mended Mot
tion for Sum
mmary Judg
gment (Dkt. 15) is
.
DENIED.

DAT
TED: July 15, 2014

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

.

MEMORA
ANDUM DECI
ISION AND ORDER - 7
R