Inama v. BOISE COUNTY EX REL. BD. OF COM'RS

• Decision Date: 24 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. 27595.,27595.
• Citation: 63 P.3d 450,138 Idaho 324
• Parties: Jerry Lee "Moe" INAMA, personally and M.O.E., an Idaho Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOISE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, by and through its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

63 P.3d 450

138 Idaho 324

Jerry Lee "Moe" INAMA, personally and M.O.E., an Idaho Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOISE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, by and through its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 27595.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, December 2002 Term.

January 24, 2003.

Ratliff Law Offices, Chtd., Mountain Home, for appellants. Terry S. Ratliff, Mtn Home, argued.

Naylor, Hales & McCreedy, P.C., Boise, for respondent. Kirtlan G. Naylor, Boise, argued.

EISMANN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim against Boise County for the loss of their front-end loader that was destroyed while the county was using it, without Plaintiffs' permission, to clear roads during a natural disaster caused by flooding and mudslides. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the latter part of December 1996, floods and mudslides plagued Boise County due to a series of fierce winter storms. On December 25, 1996, the chairman of the Boise County Board of County Commissioners declared an emergency pursuant to Idaho Code § 46-1011.¹ That declaration of emergency was reduced to writing by resolution adopted on December 30, 1996.² On December 27, 1996, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a disaster emergency in Boundary County, Idaho, as a result of severe winter storms creating excessive snowfall and ice conditions throughout the county. The proclamation stated that the Governor declared a state of extreme emergency as described in Idaho Code § 46-601(a)(2)³ and a state of disaster emergency as described in Idaho Code § 46-1008(2).⁴ It also stated, "That the nature of the emergency is the occurrence and imminent threat of injury to people and property due to damages caused from accumulated snow and ice." On December 31, 1996, the Governor amended the proclamation to include Boise County within its provisions.

As a result of the storms in Boise County, heavy flooding and mudslides closed the highway between Banks and Lowman. On December 30, 1996, Boise County and the plaintiff Inama entered into an agreement to use Inama's dump truck to haul debris from the flooding and mudslides. Inama then hired David Stricker to drive the truck. Beginning on December 31, 1996, Stricker began driving the dump truck under the direction of the Boise County Road Superintendent and a state employee.

On January 1, 1997, the Road Superintendent needed a loader to clear debris. Stricker told him about Inama's front-end loader, but added that he had no authority to use it. The Road Superintendent told Stricker to get the loader and use it to clear debris from several creeks. Stricker did as he was told. Inama was not present, did not know that his loader was going to be used by the County, and did not consent to that use.

After Stricker finished using the loader to clear debris from the creeks, the Road Superintendent told him to take the loader to Highway 17 to clear mudslides so that a crew from the electric company could get through to restore power to Garden Valley. Stricker again did as he was instructed. As Stricker was working on the mudslide, the loader developed a hydraulic leak and became inoperable. Stricker parked it and left with the electric company crew to obtain repair materials and hydraulic fluid. While they were gone, a massive mudslide swept the loader into the South Fork of the Payette River, destroying the loader.

On March 10, 1998, Inama filed this action against Boise County seeking to recover the value of his front-end loader and other damages. Ultimately, Boise County filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to have this action dismissed on the ground that it was immune from liability under Idaho Code § 46-1017. The district court granted that motion and dismissed this action. Inama then appealed.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

A. Did the district court err in ruling that Idaho Code § 46-1017 granted immunity to Boise County for the loss of Inama's loader?

B. Did the district court err in ruling that neither the United States Constitution nor the Idaho Constitution required Boise County to compensate Inama for the loss of his loader?

C. Did the district court correctly rule that Boise County is not required to compensate Inama for the loss of his loader under the theory of conversion?

D. Is either party entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

III. ANALYSIS

In an appeal from an order of summary judgment, this Court's standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 44 P.3d 1100 (2002). All disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review. Id.

A. Did the District Court Err in Ruling that Idaho Code § 46-1017 Granted Immunity to Boise County for the Loss of Inama's Loader?

The district court held that Boise County was immune from liability in this case pursuant to Idaho Code § 46-1017,⁵ which is part of the Idaho Disaster Preparedness Act of 1975. IDAHO CODE §§ 46-1001 et seq. (1997). Section 46-1017 was intended by the legislature to codify a version of the doctrine of public necessity. Marty v. State, 117 Idaho 133, 786 P.2d 524 (1989). Insofar as is relevant in this case, the statute provides that no political subdivision of the state, "engaged in any ... disaster relief activities, acting under a declaration by proper authority ... while complying or attempting to comply with this act ..., shall be liable for ... damage to property as a result of such activity." It is undisputed that Boise County is a subdivision of the state and that while using Inama's loader the County was engaged in disaster relief activities, was acting under a declaration of disaster emergency, and was complying or attempting to comply with the Idaho Disaster Preparedness Act of 1975. Inama does not dispute those facts. He argues, however, that the scope of immunity granted by § 46-1017 is narrowed by Idaho Code § 46-1012.⁶

Inama bases his argument upon subsection (3) of the statute, which provides, "Compensation for property shall be only if the property was commandeered or otherwise used in coping with a disaster emergency and its use or destruction was ordered by the governor or his representative." He argues that the scope of immunity provided by Idaho Code § 46-1017 should be no broader than the scope of compensation allowed under Idaho Code § 46-1012. Thus, he asserts that because the governor or his representative⁷ did not order the use or destruction of the loader, he is not entitled to compensation under § 46-1012 and therefore the County should not have immunity under § 46-1017.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which we exercise free review. Gooding County v. Wybenga, 137 Idaho 201, 46 P.3d 18 (2002). It must begin with the literal words of the statute, Thomson v. City of Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473, 50 P.3d 488 (2002); those words must be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meaning; and the statute must be construed as a whole. State v. Hart, 135 Idaho 827, 25 P.3d 850 (2001). If the statute is not ambiguous, this Court does not construe it, but simply follows the law as written. Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 663, 735 P.2d 974 (1987). Unless the result is palpably absurd, we must assume that the legislature means what is clearly stated in the statute. Miller v. State, 110 Idaho 298, 715 P.2d 968 (1986). If the statute as written is socially or otherwise unsound, the power to correct it is legislative, not judicial. Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 663, 735 P.2d 974 (1987). A statute is ambiguous where the language is capable of more than one reasonable construction. Jen-Rath Co., Inc. v. Kit Mfg. Co., 137 Idaho 330, 48 P.3d 659 (2002). Ambiguity is not established merely because differing interpretations are presented to the Court; otherwise, all statutes would be considered ambiguous. Id. If the statute is ambiguous, then it must be construed to mean what the legislature intended for it to mean. Miller v. State, 110 Idaho 298, 715 P.2d 968 (1986). To determine that intent, we examine not only the literal words of the statute, but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the public policy behind the statute, and its legislative history. Lopez v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 136 Idaho 174, 30 P.3d 952 (2001); Adamson v. Blanchard, 133 Idaho 602, 990 P.2d 1213 (1999).

Idaho Code § 46-1012(3) is clear and unambiguous. Compensation for property damaged, lost, or destroyed can be recovered under the Idaho Disaster Preparedness Act of 1975 only if its use or destruction was ordered by the governor or his representative. Idaho Code § 46-1017 is likewise clear and unambiguous. The statute as written does not limit the scope of immunity to damages compensable under § 46-1012. Therefore, the District Court did not err in holding that Idaho Code § 46-1017 granted Boise County immunity from damages resulting from the loss of Inama's loader.

B. Did the District Court Err in Ruling that neither the United States Constitution nor the Idaho Constitution Required Boise County to Compensate Inama for the Loss of His Loader?

In his brief, Inama lists as an assignment of error: "Whether the District Court properly ruled as a matter of law, that Boise County was not...