causation instruction in Idaho

2026We conclude that the Commission applied an incorrect legal standard because the Commission’s analysis is inconsistent with the compensable consequences doctrine, discussed in Sharp v. Thomas Brothers Plumbing, 170 Idaho 343 , 510 P.3d 1136 (2022).

2026We conclude that the Commission applied an incorrect legal standard because the Commission’s analysis is inconsistent with the compensable consequences doctrine, discussed in Sharp v. Thomas Brothers Plumbing, 170 Idaho 343 , 510 P.3d 1136 (2022).

2019Id.

2019Id.

2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n

2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n

2025Citing Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284 , 127 P.3d 187 (2005), Mann asserts that the “unfortunate result” language is inappropriate in reference to causation in a medical malpractice case.

2025Citing Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284 , 127 P.3d 187 (2005), Mann asserts that the “unfortunate result” language is inappropriate in reference to causation in a medical malpractice case.

2019The argument is also contrary to the causation analysis applied in Cottrell and articulated by the Idaho Supreme Court in Corbus, 150 Idaho 599 , 240 P.3d 398 .

2019Cottrell, 152 Idaho at 393 , 271 P.3d at 1249 .

2019Cottrell, 152 Idaho at 393 , 271 P.3d at 1249 .

2019The argument is also contrary to the causation analysis applied in Cottrell and articulated by the Idaho Supreme Court in Corbus, 150 Idaho 599 , 240 P.3d 398 .

2017Wisdom cites us to State v. McNeil, 168 Idaho 280 , 346 P.3d 297 (Ct. App. 2014), but McNeil does not change our analysis.

2014Because the claimant in Hatley died, the Court applied a presumption in Idaho Code section 72-228 that where “the injury arose in the course of employment, it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, ... that the injury or death was not occasioned by the employee’s intoxication.” Id. at 722 , 552 P.2d at 485 .

2014Because the claimant in Hatley died, the Court applied a presumption in Idaho Code section 72-228 that where “the injury arose in the course of employment, it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, ... that the injury or death was not occasioned by the employee’s intoxication.” Id. at 722 , 552 P.2d at 485 .

2013A defendant does not meet this causation test if the defendant “was already serving time in one county . . . when he was served with an arrest warrant from another county . . . on unrelated charges.” Vasquez, 142 Idaho at 68 , 122 P.3d at 1168 .

2013A defendant does not meet this causation test if the defendant “was already serving time in one county . . . when he was served with an arrest warrant from another county . . . on unrelated charges.” Vasquez, 142 Idaho at 68 , 122 P.3d at 1168 .

2005Although Vasquez argues that this Court should use a causation test to determine whether he is entitled to prejudgment credit for time served in the Payette County jail, he fails to cite in his opening brief State v. Horn, 124 Idaho 849 , 865 P.2d 176 , a case directly on point, for application of this test. 1 In Horn the defendant, like Vasquez, was being confined in a county jail for one charge when he was served with an arrest warrant from a different county for an unrelated charge.

2005Although Vasquez argues that this Court should use a causation test to determine whether he is entitled to prejudgment credit for time served in the Payette County jail, he fails to cite in his opening brief State v. Horn, 124 Idaho 849 , 865 P.2d 176 , a case directly on point, for application of this test. 1 In Horn the defendant, like Vasquez, was being confined in a county jail for one charge when he was served with an arrest warrant from a different county for an unrelated charge.