Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
2012 UT App 1
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jenkinses own a home near the District's Water Line Section along 3300 South; the District owns and operates the water system within its boundaries.
- Water Line Section ruptured in 2005 and 2006, flooding the Jenkinses' home and damaging foundation, walls, and personal property.
- Engineers identified the Water Line Section as Identified Pipe in 2002, recommended replacement later, and considered it for scheduling based on budget and priority.
- Board funded replacement in 2006-2007 after the District delayed replacement following prior breaches; replacement began October 2006 with PVC pipe, alongside other construction.
- Jenkinses sued for property damages, emotional distress, and lost wages; District answered with public duty doctrine and governmental immunity defenses; the trial court granted summary judgment on public duty doctrine grounds; appeal challenges that ruling and other basis for judgment.
- The opinion on appeal remands for damages determination and rejects multiple defenses while ultimately addressing constitutional concerns about the open courts clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public duty doctrine applicability to Jenkinses' claim | Jenkinses: District owed a duty to protect them individually; negligence forward. | District: no individual duty due to public duty doctrine. | Not barred; special relationship existed; duty recognized. |
| Notice of claim sufficiency and jurisdiction | Jenkinses' notice described damages and anticipated remedies. | Notice incomplete for some damages alleged. | Subject-matter jurisdiction exists; damages issues to be resolved on remand. |
| Necessity of expert testimony on standard of care | Jenkinses' claim could be proven without expert, given lay understanding of delay. | Expert testimony required for technical aspects. | No expert designation required; lay jury capable of analysis. |
| Discretionary function immunity under GIAU | Delay in replacement was negligent and not policy-level decision. | Decision to delay was a discretionary governmental function immune from liability. | Discretionary function immunity applies; District immune under GIAU. |
| Open courts clause and GIAU abrogation of remedy | GIAU as applied eliminates Jenkinses' remedies without reasonable alternative. | Legislature rationally addressed social/economic evils; remedy framed. | GIAU as applied violates open courts clause; remand for trial; District not entitled to immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. State, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999) (open courts Berry analysis guidance; social/economic evils; narrowly tailored remedies)
- Laney v. Fairview City, 57 P.3d 1007 (Utah 2002) (open courts; all-inclusive governmental function definition struck as applied to public utilities)
- Judd v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (Berry framework; deference to legislative judgments; openness to limited tailoring of remedies)
- Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995) (discretionary function analysis; allocation of resources; policy-level decisions)
- Johnson v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 133 P.3d 402 (Utah 2006) (Little factors; policy judgments; operational vs policy decisions)