Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
2012 UT App 204
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jenkinses own a home adjacent to the District's Water Line Section, which breached in 2005 and 2006, flooding the home and damaging property.
- The District identified the Water Line Section for replacement in 2002 but deferred replacement due to budget constraints, with funds finally allocated in 2006.
- The 2005 and 2006 breaches occurred after prior breaches; District replaced cast iron with PVC in 2006 in coordination with a road project.
- Jenkinses notified the District of claim in November 2006 seeking damages including foundation, mold, and personal property; they later sought wages and emotional distress in the complaint.
- District moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds: public duty doctrine, governmental immunity, lack of expert designation, and jurisdictional notice issues; the trial court granted summary judgment based on public duty doctrine.
- The court reverses on several grounds, holds Jenkinses have a special relationship with the District, and remands for trial on negligence claims; it also addresses open courts issues related to statutory immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did notice of claim adequately apprise damages? | Jenkinses provided substantial damages known at filing. | Lost wages and emotional distress were not specified in the notice. | Notice sufficient; some damages may be barred; remand for damages knowledge issues. |
| Does the public duty doctrine bar negligence claim here? | Special relationship and proximity create a duty to Jenkinses. | Public duty doctrine bars individualized duty to Jenkinses. | Public duty doctrine does not bar; special relationship exists; remand for trial. |
| Is expert designation required to prove negligence? | Not required given common knowledge of delay in replacement. | Expert testimony needed for engineering/maintenance issues. | No expert necessary; lay jurors can assess whether three-year delay was negligent. |
| Is the District immune under the Governmental Immunity Act for the delay in replacement? | Immunity does not apply; negligence actionable. | Discretionary function immunity applies to prioritization decisions. | Discretionary function immunity applies to the decision timing; immunity bars liability. |
| Does the open courts clause render the GIAU unconstitutional as applied? | GIAU abrogates preexisting remedy without reasonable alternative. | GIAU addresses social/economic evils with reasonable remedies. | GIAU as applied unconstitutional; remand for trial on negligence; district liable if not immune. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judd v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (open courts Berry framework; narrowly tailored remedies)
- Laney v. Fairview City, 57 P.3d 1007 (Utah 2002) (open courts, broad immunity definition scrutiny)
- Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995) (discretionary function immunity and public safety allocation)
- Day v. State ex rel Utah Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999) (social/economic evils and remedies under open courts analysis)
- Bennett v. Bow Valley Dev. Corp., 797 P.2d 419 (Utah 1990) (water provision treated as proprietary function pre-1990)
- DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428 (Utah 1995) (development of governmental immunity; building inspections)