272 P.3d 534
Idaho2012Background
- Isabela Enriquez sustained severe electrical burns from an aluminum sprinkler pipe energized by a downed high‑voltage line in 2007.
- Enriquez sued Idaho Power Company for negligence and sought a res ipsa loquitur instruction at trial.
- The district court granted Idaho Power’s directed verdict motion, ruling res ipsa loquitur did not apply.
- On appeal, Enriquez limited arguments to whether res ipsa loquitur could support negligence; theory of line failure was not pursued.
- Kamm, Enriquez’s expert, described a high‑impedance fault and engineering complexity; the court found common knowledge limits this.
- Arizona Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict, holding res ipsa loquitur not applicable; costs to Idaho Power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies here | Enriquez argues the line failure and safety failures permit inference of negligence. | Idaho Power contends the circumstances are not within common knowledge and require expert proof. | Res ipsa loquitur does not apply; no inference of negligence to Idaho Power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Potratz, 100 Idaho 352 (1979) (two‑element res ipsa framework; control and absence of negligence inference)
- Kolln v. St. Luke’s Reg’l Med. Ctr., 130 Idaho 323 (1997) (res ipsa limited to common knowledge of laypersons)
- S. H. Kress & Co. v. Godman, 95 Idaho 614 (1973) (causation and defendant’s negligence must be shown for res ipsa)
- KEB Enterprises, L.P. v. Smedley, 140 Idaho 746 (2004) (appeals on issues not preserved at trial not considered)
- Dawson v. Cheyovich Fam. Trust, 149 Idaho 375 (2010) (issues must be supported by cogent argument and authority)
- O'Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49 (2005) (negligence elements and standard of care framework)