Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
321 P.3d 1049
| Utah | 2013Background
- Jenkins homeowners sued Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District after a cast‑iron water main (installed 1957) broke in 2005 and again in 2006, flooding and damaging their home.
- The District repaired the 2005 break with a clamp and voluntarily assisted the homeowners with some repairs; the engineering department had earlier listed the 400 East segment as a candidate for replacement but did not prioritize it until sidewalk work in 2006 allowed replacement.
- A second, separate break occurred in October 2006 during replacement work, causing further damage; the District declined to compensate the homeowners for the 2006 damage.
- The Jenkinses alleged negligence for failing to replace the pipeline sooner; the District moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including that the plaintiffs failed to designate an expert to establish the standard of care.
- The district court granted summary judgment on public‑duty grounds; the court of appeals reversed (finding a special‑relationship exception and that expert testimony was unnecessary); the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an internal District determination to replace the pipe eliminates need for expert proof of standard of care | Jenkins: District’s prior internal decision to replace shows replacement was required, so no expert needed | District: Internal planning decisions do not equate to a tort duty; technical standard requires expert proof | Court: Rejected plaintiff — internal recommendation does not establish legal standard of care; expert required |
| Whether the question of whether the pipeline needed replacement is within common lay knowledge | Jenkins: Facts (prior recommendation, prior break) make the issue understandable to jurors without experts | District: Necessity of replacement depends on technical factors beyond juror knowledge | Court: Held the repair/replace assessment is technical and beyond lay knowledge; expert testimony generally required |
| Whether failure to designate an expert was fatal to Jenkins’ negligence claim on summary judgment | Jenkins: No expert necessary due to District’s internal determination and factual record | District: Failure to designate expert prevents proof of duty/breach, so summary judgment proper | Court: Agreed with District — plaintiffs’ lack of expert proof dooms negligence claim; summary judgment affirmed on that ground |
| Whether the court of appeals properly treated remainder of its decision (public‑duty, governmental immunity, Open Courts) | Jenkins: N/A for expert issue | District: Court of appeals erred on expert requirement; other holdings not reached | Court: Reversed court of appeals on expert issue and vacated its other holdings without deciding them |
Key Cases Cited
- Slisze v. Stanley‑Bostitch, 979 P.2d 317 (Utah 1999) (negligence requires proof of a duty breached)
- District of Columbia v. Arnold & Porter, 756 A.2d 427 (D.C. 2000) (operation and maintenance of municipal water mains not within common juror knowledge)
- I.M. of Atl. City v. District of Columbia, 356 F. Supp. 487 (D.D.C. 1973) (expert evidence on variable lifespan and factors affecting cast‑iron pipes’ condition)
- Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348 (Utah 1980) (expert testimony generally required where subject matter lies outside average citizen knowledge)
- Grace & Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 168 F. Supp. 344 (S.D. Cal. 1958) (pipe corrosion and local conditions can make segments differently serviceable; replacement not automatically required)