Court Opinion

ID: 9608570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:14:48.786528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:09.399910
License: Public Domain

McDEVITT, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion reversing the trial court’s refusal to instruct as to strict liability as requested by the Bisharas.
In Farmer v. International Harvester Co., 97 Idaho 742, 553 P.2d 1306 (1976), this Court held:
A prima facia case may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence of a malfunction of the product in the absence of evidence of abnormal use and the absence of evidence of reasonable secondary causes which would eliminate liability of the defendant.
97 Idaho at 747, 553 P.2d at 1311.
A plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause but only reasonably likely causes. (Citations omitted.)
97 Idaho at 749, 553 P.2d at 1313.
To be entitled to the instruction requested, the Bisharas were required, under the Farmer holding, to produce evidence of the “reasonably likely causes” and evidence of the “absence of evidence of reasonable secondary causes.” This the Bisharas failed to do.