Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
2013 UT 59
Utah2013Background
- Owners Jenkinses sues District after a pipeline break flooded their basement.
- District had repaired a 2005 break and then planned replacement when convenient, not mandated by a court standard of care.
- In 2006 another break occurred during replacement work; Jenkinses refused compensation for damages.
- District moved for summary judgment arguing no expert needed to prove standard of care and other immunities.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding expert testimony unnecessary; Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Utah Supreme Court reverses, holding expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care for replacement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did internal replacement recommendation establish the standard of care? | Jenkinses claim internal delay evidence proves duty to replace. | District argues internal decision does not define duty of care. | Not established; expert testimony required to define standard of care. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 979 P.2d 317 (Utah 1999) (duty and breach require expert testimony when beyond lay understanding)
- Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348 (Utah 1980) (expert testimony generally required to establish standard of care)
- Edwards v. Didericksen, 597 P.2d 1328 (Utah 1979) (expert testimony enhances fact finding to avoid jury speculation)
- I.M. of Atlantic City v. District of Columbia, 356 F. Supp. 487 (D.D.C. 1973) (cast-iron pipe lifespan and replacement decisions require expert analysis)