Eldridge v. Black Canyon Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 19 April 1935
• Docket Number: 6167
• Citation: 55 Idaho 443,43 P.2d 1052
• Parties: GEORGE ELDRIDGE, Respondent, v. BLACK CANYON IRRIGATION DISTRICT and HENRY W. JORDAN, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

43 P.2d 1052

55 Idaho 443

GEORGE ELDRIDGE, Respondent, v. BLACK CANYON IRRIGATION DISTRICT and HENRY W. JORDAN, Appellants

No. 6167

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 19, 1935

APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE-DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT-WATER AND WATERCOURSES-IRRIGATION DISTRICT-LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENT-ACTS WITHIN SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.

1. Application for postponement of trial is addressed to trial judge's discretion, and ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal, in absence of abuse thereof.

2. Where parties, who applied for postponement on account of absence of one of their attorneys, had other counsel and were ably represented throughout trial, denial of application held not abuse of discretion.

3. Judicial opinions are authoritative only on the facts on which they are founded and general expressions must be considered and construed in the light of this rule.

4. An "irrigation district," while exercising certain governmental powers, is brought into existence for private benefit of land owners within its limits; it owns and operates its irrigation system in a proprietary rather than public capacity, and assumes and must bear burdens of property ownership.

5. Rule imposing liability for torts of its servants on municipal corporation when not exercising governmental function or police power applies with equal force to public organizations other than cities, which exercise governmental powers including irrigation districts.

6. In action against irrigation district for assault by district superintendent, whether superintendent, in controversy with farm employee regarding waste water being emptied into canal struck employee in self-defense held for jury.

7. Whether irrigation district superintendent who struck farm employee during altercation over waste water being emptied into irrigation ditch was acting within scope of employment so as to render district liable for injuries held for jury.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. John C. Rice, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict overruled. Judgment and order overruling motion affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Thos E. Buckner, for Appellants.

An irrigation district is not liable for the wilful and malicious acts of its officers. (Doyle v. City of Sandpoint, 18 Idaho 654, 112 P. 204, 205, Ann. Cas 1912A, 210, 32 L. R. A., N. S. 34; Ducre v. Sparrow-Kroll Lumber Co., 168 Mich. 49, 133 N.W. 938, 47 L. R. A., N. S., 959.)

An irrigation district, being an agency or arm of the state, is not liable in damages for the negligence of its officers unless expressly made so by statute. (Whiteman v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist., 60 Cal.App. 234, 212 P. 706; Nissen v. Cordua Irr. Dist., 204 Cal. 542, 269 P. 171.)

A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the court. (13 C. J., Continuances, sec. 55-h; Lillienthal v. Anderson, 1 Idaho 673; Cox v. Northwestern State Co., 1 Idaho 376; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Dean Drug Co., 136 Iowa 312, 111 N.W. 534, 535.)

S. Ben Dunlap and George Donart, for Respondent.

An irrigation district is a quasi-public corporation whose functions are all performed in a proprietary rather than a public or governmental capacity. (City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Noon v. Gem Irr. Dist., 205 F. 402.)

A municipal corporation, acting in a proprietary capacity, is answerable for an unjustified assault committed by its employee in the course of his employment. (Munick v. City of Durham, 181 N.C. 188, 106 N.E. 665, 24 A. L. R. 538, and cases cited in note thereto.)

MORGAN, J. Givens, C. J., and Holden, J., concur. Budge and Ailshie, JJ., dissent.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

Black Canyon Irrigation District, hereinafter called the district, and Henry W. Jordan have appealed from a judgment against them in favor of George Eldridge, for damages because of personal injuries alleged to have been wilfully and maliciously inflicted on the latter by Jordan in the course of his employment by the district. The district has also appealed from an order overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Appellants applied to the district court for a postponement on the ground that one of their attorneys was absent from the state and would not return in time to participate in the trial. The postponement was denied and the order denying it is assigned as error.

The application was addressed to the discretion of the judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of abuse thereof. (Rankin v. Caldwell, 15 Idaho 625, 99 P. 108.) The record shows that, after the complaint was filed, one of appellants' attorneys departed from the state and was not expected to return and, so far as is disclosed, did not return until after the time fixed for the trial. Appellants had counsel, other than the absent attorney, and were ably represented throughout the course of the litigation. The denial of the application for postponement was not an abuse of discretion.

The district insists that it, being brought into existence for the purpose of exercising governmental powers, is not liable for wrongful and malicious acts of its agents. In support of this contention it cites, among other cases, Doyle v. City of Sandpoint, 18 Idaho 654, 112 P. 204, Ann. Cas. 1912A 210, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 34, wherein Doyle sought damages against the city for having caused an injunction to be issued restraining him from making use of a building which he owned. No undertaking was required of the city because it was exempted therefrom by our statute relating to the issuance of injunctions in suits by certain classes of litigants. It was held that no recovery could be had for damages for the wrongful issuance of an injunction, in a suit by a litigant not required to give an undertaking, unless the procuring of the injunction was malicious and without probable cause. This court in that case said:

"In the present case, the action is not prosecuted on the grounds of malice, but the suing out of the writ of injunction and continuing it in force from the time of its issuance is alleged as the cause of the damage, and the damages demanded are the usual damages allowed and recoverable under the statutory undertaking. It is clear that such an action cannot be maintained."

Having so held, the court further said:

"Now, if the plaintiff had commenced this action charging the city of Sandpoint with having procured the injunction maliciously and without probable cause, he would, it seems to us, fail, for the reason that the municipality could not be guilty of procuring a writ of injunction maliciously. If the officers of the city acted maliciously and without probable cause in suing out the writ, the act would be that of the individuals and not of the municipality. To act maliciously would be outside of the scope of official duty and authority and would become the personal act of the individual for which he and not the city would be responsible."

The quotation last above appearing is relied on by the district in support of its contention. That statement was not necessary to a decision of Doyle v. Sandpoint and is subject to the rule announced in the first section of the syllabus to Bashore v. Adolf, 41 Idaho 84, 238 P. 534, 41 A. L. R. 932, as follows:

"Judicial opinions are authoritative only on the facts on which they are founded, and general expressions must be considered and construed in the light of this rule."

The nature of an irrigation district is discussed in Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377, 23 P.2d 720, and the Idaho cases on that subject will be found therein assembled. From these cases it will be seen that an irrigation district, while exercising certain governmental powers, is brought into existence for the private benefit of the owners of land within its limits; that it owns and operates its irrigation system in a proprietary rather than a public capacity, and assumes and must bear the burdens of property ownership.

Discussing the liability of municipalities for the torts of their agents, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in Munick v. Durham, 181 N.C. 188, 106 S.E. 665, 24 A. L. R. 538, said:

"The distinction is very broad and clear and is settled by all the authorities substantially as follows: Wherever a city is exercising a governmental function or police power, it is not responsible for the torts or negligence of its officers, in the absence of a statute imposing such liability; but when it is acting in its business capacity, as in operating a water or lighting plant, or other business function, it is liable for the conduct of its agents and servants exactly to the same extent that any other business corporation would be liable under the same circumstances."

That rule applies with equal force to public organizations other than cities, which exercise governmental powers, including irrigation districts. (Noon v. Gem Irrigation District, 205 F. 402; City of Nampa v. Nampa etc. Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Strickfaden v. Green Creek Highway Dist., 42 Idaho 738, 248 P. 456, 49 A. L. R. 1057.)

This appeal presents a question of fact as to whether Jordan, when he struck respondent,...