Jones v. City of St. Maries, 15745
Decision Date | 15 October 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 15745,15745 |
Parties | Verle JONES and Annette Jones, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF ST. MARIES, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Respondent, and Safeway, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Samuel Eismann, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-respondent.
Because this case was decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, for the purposes of this appeal, we must accept the truth of appellants' allegations. See, e.g., Davenport v. Burke, 27 Idaho 464, 473, 149 P. 511, 515 (1915). The facts as stated by the appellants are as follows:
The appellants, Verle and Annette Jones, were the owners of a residence in St. Maries, Idaho. The residence was located immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of the Tubbs building in St. Maries. On Thursday, July 29, 1982, at 12:34 AM, a small fire was discovered at the loading dock on the north end of the Tubbs building. The fire was quickly extinguished and was declared out by 12:45 AM. At about 3:13 AM, a second alarm was sounded and the fire department arrived to find the entire northwest corner of the building in flames. Efforts to provide water to fight the fire were delayed because of debris plugging the screens in the pumper. The debris apparently had been discharged from the fire hydrant or water system. A second fire hydrant had been turned off and the time expended in turning it back on further delayed efforts to extinguish the fire. As a result, the fire spread to the Jones's residence, which was totally destroyed.
The Joneses filed a claim against the City of St. Maries under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) alleging that the city was negligent in maintaining its water mains and fire hydrants. The claim was subsequently denied. The Joneses then initiated this action for damages against the city and against Safeway, Inc., the lessee of the Tubbs building. The city moved to dismiss the counts against it on the grounds that the Joneses had failed to allege a Notice of Tort Claim as required by the ITCA, and that the city was immune from liability pursuant to I.C. § 6-904(1), the discretionary function exception to the ITCA. The district court granted the city's motion holding that the city was immune from liability under § 6-904(1) of the ITCA. The Joneses appeal from that decision.
With the enactment of the ITCA, the state of Idaho has subjected itself to negligence liability.
In the recent case of Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755, (1986), we comprehensively discussed the standard of construction and review under the ITCA. There we stated that liability is the rule with certain specific exceptions. Sterling, supra, 214-215, 723 P.2d 758-759; see also, Doe v. Durtschi, 110 Idaho 466, 716 P.2d 1238, (1986). We further noted that, "Those exceptions which are stated must be closely construed." Sterling, supra, 111 Idaho at 215, 723 P.2d at 759.
The instant case involves the so-called "discretionary function" exception to liability which is contained in I.C. § 6-904(1):
The district court, in granting the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings, apparently felt that our construction of the discretionary function exception in Chandler Supply Co. Inc. v. Boise, 104 Idaho 480, 660 P.2d 1323 (1983), was controlling.
In Chandler, the plaintiff, Chandler Supply Company, brought suit against the city of Boise alleging that the Boise Fire Department was negligent in failing to completely extinguish a fire which ultimately spread to the plaintiff's property, resulting in substantial damage thereto. The trial court refused to hold the city immune from liability under the discretionary function exception to the ITCA and the jury returned a special verdict finding the city 75% negligent. On appeal, this Court reversed holding that,
Chandler, supra at 486, 660 P.2d at 1329. (Emphasis in original.)
The trial court felt the circumstances of the instant case were indistinguishable from those in Chandler and granted the city's motion to dismiss on that basis.
"I have a very difficult time in my mind distinguishing this case from the Chandler case or the Dunbar case for that matter, when you are talking about the actual maintenance of the firefighting apparatus, which I would think the hydrant system would be. Clearly to me the maintenance of a hydrant system is done for the same purpose as maintenance of a fire truck, or maintenance of anything else that goes along with it, I surely think it all falls into the scope of a governmental function. And, likewise, I think that probably the inspection and duties that go along with enforcement of ordinances, or codes, or whatever you might have involved, is certainly governmental function, I simply can't distinguish that.
....
The trial court was, of course, acting without the benefit of our recent decision in Sterling v. Bloom, supra, in which we adopted the "planning/operational test" for determining whether a particular governmental action is discretionary and therefore immune under I.C. § 6-904(1). The planning/operational test provides immunity for planning activities--activities which Sterling specifically rejected the "traditional governmental function" analysis employed in Chandler.
[111 Idaho 736] involve the establishment of plans, specifications and schedules where there is room for policy judgment and decisions. Operational activities--activities involving the implementation of statutory and regulatory policy--are not immunized and, accordingly, must be performed with ordinary care. Sterling, supra 111 Idaho at 229-30, 723 P.2d at 773-74.
Sterling, supra at 231, 723 P.2d at 775. (Emphasis in original.)
The trial court, acting without the benefit of Sterling, concluded that the maintenance of the water mains and fire hydrants at issue in the present case was part of the traditional governmental function of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ransom v. City of Garden City, 16430
...... Id., at 230, 723 P.2d at 774. See also, Jones v. City of St. Maries, 111 Idaho 733, 736, 727 P.2d 1161, 1164 (1986). Of course, greater rank or ......
-
Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist.
...1077–78 (Fla.1982); Julius Rothschild & Co. v. Hawaii, 66 Haw. 76, 655 P.2d 877, 880–81 (1982) (per curiam); Jones v. City of St. Maries, 111 Idaho 733, 727 P.2d 1161, 1163–64 (1986); Peavler v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Monroe Cnty., 528 N.E.2d 40, 45 (Ind.1988); Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 15......
-
Walker v. Shoshone County, 16233
...... Jones v. St. Maries, 111 Idaho 733, 727 P.2d 1161 (1986). . The .... "2. 'Political subdivision' means any county, city, municipal corporation, health district, school district, irrigation ......
-
Rees v. State, Dept. of Health and Welfare, 31632.
......1, 847 P.2d at 1159 n. 1; Olguin v. City of Burley, 119 . Page 402 . Idaho 721, 723, 810 P.2d 255, 257 (1991); ...In Jones v. City of St. Maries, Justice Huntley noted that the first clause of ......