Enriquez v. Idaho Power Co., 272 P.3d 534

Enriquez received a severe electrical shock when approaching an aluminum sprinkler pipe energized by a downed high-voltage line.
The sprinkler pipe was on the ground under power lines and partly covered by vegetation, near Enriquez's harvesting area.
Enriquez testified he did not lift the pipe into the line but intended to drag it aside; he lost consciousness after the shock.
After the incident, Enriquez informed his supervisor and waited for Idaho Power to secure and repair the line.
Enriquez sued Idaho Power for negligence and sought a res ipsa loquitur instruction, which Idaho Power opposed.
The district court granted Idaho Power’s directed verdict, ruling res ipsa loquitur did not apply; Enriquez appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res ipsa loquitur apply?	Enriquez argues the circumstances permit an inference of negligence via res ipsa.	Idaho Power contends the required layperson inference is not justifiable here.	Res ipsa loquitur does not apply.
Was the negligence theory evidence-based or waived on appeal?	Enriquez argued Idaho Power's safety equipment failed to shut off the line.	Only this theory was pressed on appeal; other theories were not pleaded at trial.	Evidence under res ipsa loquitur insufficient; theory not pursued on its own merits; issue waived.

Christensen v. Potratz, 100 Idaho 352 (Idaho 1979) (two elements for res ipsa; common knowledge standard)
Kolln v. St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., 130 Idaho 323 (Idaho 1997) (res ipsa limited to common knowledge and experience)
S.H. Kress & Co. v. Godman, 95 Idaho 614 (Idaho 1973) (causation linking instrumentality to defendant's negligence required)
KEB Enterprises, L.P. v. Smedley, 140 Idaho 746 (Idaho 2004) (requires showing of negligence connection to defendant)
Dawson v. Cheyovich Fam. Trust, 149 Idaho 375 (Idaho 2010) (issues on appeal require cogent argument and authority)
O'Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2005) (negligence elements overview)