Opinion ID: 1233857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Rebuttable Presumption By Clear and Convincing Evidence

Text: Olsen further contends that although Idaho's statute of repose does not absolutely cut off potential rights, it is nevertheless fatally flawed and violates his due process rights. He asserts that the presumption, by requiring rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence, imposes an unreasonable standard upon common law protected rights. Some jurisdictions have determined that the power to enact statutes of repose that preclude a cause of action is implicit in the legislature's power to abolish rights that have not yet vested. Rosenberg v. Town of N. Bergen, 61 N.J. 190, 293 A.2d 662, 667 (1972); Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 418 N.E.2d 207 (1981). In Rosenberg, the Supreme Court of New Jersey explained that a cause of action does not accrue until a careless act results in injury or damage, and observed that the statute in question, ... does not bar a cause of action; its effect, rather, is to prevent what might otherwise be a cause of action, from ever arising. Thus injury occurring more than ten years after the negligent act allegedly responsible for the harm, forms no basis for recovery. The injured party literally has no cause of action... . The function of the statute is thus rather to define substantive rights than to alter or modify a remedy. The Legislature is entirely at liberty to create new rights or abolish old ones as long as no vested right is disturbed. 293 A.2d at 667. This Court has held that the common law can nearly always be modified by the legislature provided that the enactment is not unconstitutional, and that the common law is in effect only to the extent that it is not repugnant or inconsistent with legislative enactments. See State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 486 P.2d 247 (1971); Doggett v. Boiler Eng'g & Supply Co., 93 Idaho 888, 477 P.2d 511 (1970). In Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P.2d 399 (1976), we held nothing in Art. 1, § 18 of our Constitution either explicitly or implicitly prohibits legislative modification of common law actions. 97 Idaho at 864, 555 P.2d at 404. It is clear that the legislature has modified the common law by the enactment of I.C. § 6-1403. Were this not so the 1971 Idaho legislature could not have made wide sweeping changes in the common law by the enactment of the Idaho Tort Claims Act abolishing governmental immunity, I.C. § 6-901, and abolishing the absolute common law bar of contributory negligence by adoption of comparative negligence. I.C. § 6-801. Olsen's injury did not occur until after the statute of repose was enacted, and as such, a cognizable liberty or property interest has not been affected. In any event, no showing whatsoever was made by Olsen to rebut the presumption that the useful safe life of the hay baler had not expired. Olsen's challenge to the clear and convincing evidence requirement is moot because he failed to provide any evidence of any weight to rebut the presumption. There is nothing before the Court with regard to this argument because Olsen failed to present any evidence to rebut the presumption, and we therefore wait until another day when the issue is presented to us to determine whether the evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence as set forth in I.C. § 6-1403 imposes an unreasonable standard upon common law protected rights.