Idaho Law Blog
Estate Planning
Problem Solved
Contact Us NowFor a Consultation
Work Accidents and the Marek Decision – When Can Employees Sue Their Employers For Personal Injuries?
Work Accidents and the Marek Decision – When Can Employees Sue Their Employers For Personal Injuries?
In its recent decision in Marek v. Hecla, Limited, the Idaho Supreme affirmed summary judgment in favor of the mine/employer and dismissed a wrongful death claim arising from the collapse of a portion of the Lucky Friday Mine in north Idaho. The collapse was investigated by the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration which found that the collapse occurred because of Hecla’s removal of a waste pillar inside the mine. MSHA specifically found that Hecla’s conduct in removing the pillar constituted more than ordinary negligence. Based on these findings, MSHA issued three citations to Hecla.
The Public Policy Exception to At-Will Employment
In Idaho, almost every employee is an at-will employee, which means he has no contract with his employer establishing how long the employment relationship will last or limiting why he can be fired. At-will employees can be fired for almost any reason and, conversely, can quit for any reason. Such an arrangement allows equal freedom to both the employer and the employee.
There is a general exception, however, to an employer’s rights under an at-will employment relationship: an employer cannot fire an employee when motivated by a reason that is against public policy. See MacNeil v. Minidoka Mem’l Hosp., 108 Idaho 588, 589, 701 P.2d 208, 209 (1985). All but a few states recognize this exception. Idaho courts have explained that public policy is made of principles that restrict parties’ freedom to contract and privately deal. Such restrictions are for the good of the community; whatever contravenes good morals or any established interests of society is against public policy. See Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330, 333, 563 P.2d 54, 57 (1977).
Proper Response to Emergency Vehicles to Avoid Accidents
How often on a congested interstate do you hear sirens approaching, and then see the emergency lights approach from behind your vehicle? When an emergency vehicle approaches on a busy freeway, what should drivers do to respond in a safe and lawful manner?
Idaho Code §42-625 reads as follows: “(1) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency or police vehicle making use of an audible or visible signal, meeting the requirements of section 49-623, Idaho Code, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the nearest edge or curb of the highway lawful for parking and clear of any intersection, and stop and remain in that position until the authorized emergency or police vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a peace officer.”
You must pull over and STOP even on the freeway, not just slow down. Even though it may be tough to pull to the right in traffic congestion, emergency personnel have been trained to stay to the left of traffic. If you are unable to pull to the right due to other vehicles, then stop and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes by. Dangerous situations can develop for you, other drivers, and the emergency personnel.
Why Having Co-Personal Representatives is a Bad Idea
In the course of being an estate planning attorney for nearly two decades I can tell you that I often have clients who want to have more than one of their children named as a co-personal representative. Whenever this happens I have a lengthy discussion with my clients about the reasons this is a bad idea. Here the purpose of this post is to provide a description of the main reasons I give to my clients for why having co-personal representative is a bad idea.
UNNECESSARY DISAGREEMENTS
Don’t Put Your Children on Your Checking Account
I’ve come to understand that my estate planning clients are always well-meaning, but often make mistakes in their estate planning simply because they don’t understand the legal effect of their actions. One of the areas that I find is often a concern is when an older parent puts a child’s name as a co-owner on their banking accounts.
Typically this occurs when a person is getting older and they are concerned about their ability to continue paying their bills and doing the financial things that they would normally do with their bank accounts. In this circumstance this older adult will often name one of their adult children as a co-owner on their bank accounts so the child can sign checks for bills and the like. Their reasoning is that by doing this they are assured that their bills will get paid and all of their financial obligations will continue to be met. The problem is, the legal effect of naming a child on your bank account is way different than what you may understand.
Single-Vehicle Crash on Eastbound I-184 in Ada County, Franklin Exit
The Idaho State Police (ISP) report that a single-vehicle crash caused injuries to a 21 year-old driver on November 16, 2016 at approximately 3:30 p.m. The accident happened near the Franklin Road exit in Ada County.
A female from Kuna, who was driving a 2005 Toyota Scion, left the lane of travel while taking the exit, struck the left barrier, and then struck the right barrier. Her vehicle stopped in the lane of travel.
The 21year-old driver, who was wearing her seat belt, was taken to St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise by ambulance. The Franklin Road exit was blocked for about 30 minutes following the accident. The crash is still under investigation by the ISP.
Your Treating Physician Can Gut Your Idaho Workers’ Compensation Claim
By Fred Lewis
In Fairchild v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 159 Idaho 208 (2015), on November 13, 2004 16 year old Terence Fairchild was employed by Kentucky Fried Chicken as a cook. He was carrying garbage to a dumpster when he slipped on ice and fell, striking his knees on a concrete barrier. He sought medical care for his knee injury and finally ended up in the office of Dr. Simms, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Simms diagnosed Terence with a posterior cruciate ligament injury to his right knee. He did not believe that surgery was needed and gave the claimant a 3% whole person impairment rating. The independent medical evaluator hired by the workers’ compensation insurance company opined that Terence’s right knee was stable and he sustained no permanent partial impairment. In 2011, Terence’s lawyer sent him to another physician to conduct another impairment rating. This new physician gave the claimant a 7% whole person impairment rating. None of the doctors gave the claimant any type of physical restrictions.
The Idaho Industrial Commission found that Terence was not a credible witness based on observations during the hearing and the differences between his hearing testimony and his prior statements during depositions, interviews, and appointments with medical providers. The Commission entered an order awarding the 3% whole person impairment rating with no disability in excess of the impairment rating since there were no restrictions.
Is an Employer Liable for the Actions of Its Employees?
By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney
My employer clients often ask me if they can be held liable for injuries or damages caused by their employees while they are working. Whenever I begin discussing this question with my clients I always like to start with a scene from the movie, Joe Somebody. Here is the scene:
JEREMY I’m gone for three days and employees are fighting like schoolkids in the parking lot. This McKinney, I know everybody hates that big jerk. But this Joe “Shepherd”
Can an Employer Be Liable for the Misrepresentations of its Employees?
Misrepresentation is just another word for fraud. Misrepresentation, either intentional or through negligence simply means there was a failure to communicate. This section will first define the types of misrepresentation that exist in Idaho and will then discuss the basic elements of agency law, which is required for liability to rest on the employer.
There are two basic kinds of misrepresentation: intentional and negligent. Intentional misrepresentation is where a person essentially, knowingly tells a lie. Negligent misrepresentation occurs when a person either simply doesn’t bother to learn first whether the things they are saying are true or they believe something to be true that isn’t and they then represent these things to others. They aren’t intentionally deceiving anyone but what they are saying isn’t true.