Court Opinion

ID: 9627552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:47:34.022003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:51.329675
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting from denial of plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing.
Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 603 P.2d 575 (1979), and Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 727 P.2d 1187 (1986), might as well not have been written. Such is the tenor of the petition and supporting brief of counsel for Bill Jones and Bill Jones Distributors. I cannot disagree, and wonder if anyone can. The brief states rather forthrightly that:
A basic concept consistently espoused by this court and the Court of Appeals (See Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 727 P.2d 1187 (1986), Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609, 733 P.2d 1234 (1986), Nations v. Bonner Building Supply, supra) is that Judges must give reasons for their decisions on new trial motions.
Once an examination of the rhetoric and case citations are stripped away from the district court’s decision, the question becomes: Did the district judge set forth his reasons in finding that there was ‘passion and prejudice?’ The answer to this question is no. The only reasoning process undertaken with regard to the facts of the case made by the district judge in substituting his opinion for the jury’s was that he ‘cannot determine with precision the amount of damages which would have been awarded by the Court if the trial were had without the jury.’ R. 315, but his award would' have been less. The district court does not shed any light whatsoever on how he reaches the conclusion. We, the reader of the decision and you, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, are left in a ‘black hole’ of reasoning as to how the district judge factually arrived at his conclusion. Is the trial court’s decision that the jury’s verdict was the result of pas*764sion and prejudice based upon a mistaken view of the law as previously set forth in other briefs ... ? ‘Why’ does the judge arrive at his conclusion that the verdict ‘could only’ be the result of passion and prejudice when he previously stated that there was substantial evidence to justify the jury’s verdict on the issue of damages?
This court is consistently inundated with appeals on the issue of motions for new trial. This inundation will continue until this court sets forth a clearly enunciated process by which the district judge must set forth his reasoning process when he or she chooses to substitute his opinion for that of the jury. Because there have been so many appeals on new trial issues, it appears that a simplified ‘paint by number’ process should be set forth by this court in order for a trial judge to overturn a jury’s verdict in a Rule 59 decision. The following should be required:
1. The trial judge must consider whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See Blaine v. Byers, supra, Robertson v. Richards, supra. (‘The first prong directs the trial judge to consider whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.' Robertson, 115 Idaho [628] at 631 [769 P.2d 505 at 508].)
2. The trial court should determine whether a different result would follow in a retrial. See Blaine, supra, Robertson, supra:
‘The second prong of Blaine directs the trial court to consider whether a different result would follow in a retrial:
Additionally, the general rule which prevails in this jurisdiction is that a motion for a new trial should not be granted unless it appears that a different result would follow a retrial. Id. 61 Idaho [665] at 671, 429 P.2d [397] at 403.’
115 Idaho at 632 [769 P.2d at 509].
3. If the trial court is going to grant a motion for new trial, the trial court must set forth its reason. This court followed an articulated reasoning process in Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 603 P.2d 575 (1979); so should a trial court in order for an appellate court to conduct an appropriate review.
An examination of this court’s decision1 ... with regard to the issue of compensatory damages, reveals that this court’s entire reasoning process was as follows:
‘After reviewing the evidence, we are not convinced that the trial court committed a ‘manifest abuse of [its] wide discretion’ when it found that the jury’s award was excessive and could have only resulted from passion or prejudice, therefore justifying a grant of a new trial on compensatory damages pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(a)(5). The trial court’s memorandum opinion demonstrates that it properly applied the standards set out in our most recent cases.’
An examination of the record and the trial court’s decision leaves one in the dark with regard to the resoning behind the district court’s decision. The district court’s analysis was simply a ‘conclusion.’ It stated it would not have decided in the same way and that the jury’s decision ‘could only’ be a result of ‘passion and prejudice.’ No explanation was given as to ‘why’ it reached this factual conclusion.
The Court of Appeals already believes that Quick v. Crane requires that a trial judge must give a reason for his or her decision on a new trial motion. This court, in Dinneen v. Finch, went through a reasoning process when it concluded that a new trial should have occurred. A review of the district court’s decision in this case leaves one with the following question which remains unanswered: ‘What is there about the jury’s decision that leads one to believe that there was no basis for the decision and that the jury’s decision could only have been the result of passion and prejudice?’ The trial judge failed to articulate any *765factual reason why damages were excessive.
If our system is going to requre 14 citizens to sustain lost wages and loss of contact with their family while fulfilling their duty as jurors, (ignoring for the moment the time and money expended of the litigants and their attorneys) before the district court substitutes its opinion for that of the jury, it should be required to articulate its reasoning process in the same manner as did this court in Dinneen v. Finch, supra. While requiring the district judge to go through an articulated reasoning process may be considered by some to be too great a burden on the already busy district judge, it in the long run will save not only the district court’s time but also the time of the jurors, the litigants, the attorneys, and the appellate courts.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing argument, this court’s existing decision in Jones v. Panhandle should be reconsidered. Upon reconsideration, punitive damages and compensatory damages should be reinstated. In the alternative, should this court determine that the trial court is required to articulate its reasons when reaching a conclusion to grant a new trial, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs-appellants’ Brief in Support of Petition for Rehearing, 11-15.
My concern is that, as an appellate court, we have effectively disowned Dinneen and Quick, and instead operate on a case-by-case basis when it comes to reviews of motions for new trial. For example, consider this Court’s opinion in Heitz v. Carroll, 117 Idaho 373, 788 P.2d 188 (1990), with the opinion on Jones v. Panhandle. Chief Justice Bakes writes for the majority in both cases and reviews motions for new trial in both cases. In both cases the trial judge created error.2 There the comparison ends, because in Heitz the majority holds that the judge's own error is not an appropriate ground for a new trial, but in Jones the judge’s finding of error in instruction 14 is affirmed. Perhaps, as Andre Gide once wrote, this Court believes that “in irresolution lies the secret of not growing old.”

. Counsel is referring to the Idaho Supreme Court.

. In Heitz, the trial court found error in the special verdict form because it did not include certain legal theories not requested by the parties. In Jones the trial court found error in a jury instruction that was neither objected to nor unclear.