Assume that a person is seriously injured in a car crash caused by the careless driving of a member of the National Guard. Can the injured person recover money damages to pay for the harms and losses sustained in the crash? In Idaho, the answer to that question is sometimes ‘no.’
This issue was address by the Idaho Supreme Court in February of 2014, in the case ofTeurlings vs. Larson.
On January 7, 2007, at about 12:43 p.m., National Guard member Mallory Martinez was involved in a traffic accident with injured Plaintiff William Teurlings. At the time, Martinez was a member of the Idaho National Guard, 145th HHC Support Battalion, headquartered in Lewiston. Martinez was required to attend instructional drills one weekend each month.
Before trial, the lower court judge granted the National Guard’s Motion to Dismiss the case based upon Idaho statute 9-604 which bars lawsuits for injuries caused by members of the National Guard while in training or fulfilling duties of the Guard.
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed this ruling, and ordered the case sent back to the trial judge to make specific factual determinations before considering the dismissal of the lawsuit.
First the Supreme Court had to address the issue of whether Martinez was on active duty when the collision occurred. The court stated:
Here, Martinez had been released early from her duty station around noon. At the time of the accident, Martinez was traveling home in her own vehicle after the end of training. Thus, the accident did not take place during her federal training exercise, and Martinez was not engaged in training at the time of the accident……
However, there remains an issue of material fact as to whether Martinez was carrying out a specific duty at the time of the accident. Martinez contends that Sergeant Rice had ordered her to provide fellow guardsman, Poe, transportation to and from the training drills that weekend and on previous weekends. If Martinez was indeed acting pursuant to a legitimate, authorized order, it is likely that Martinez was engaged in a active duty.……. Given the conflicting evidence, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Martinez was engaged in a National Guard duty at the time that she was transporting Poe back to the Treasure Valley and therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted on this basis.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the lower court must also make a determination as to whether Martinez was acting within the course and scope of her National Guard duties when the collision occurred.
Bottom line – When you see those olive drab trucks and tanks rolling down the highway, keep a safe distance.