272 P.3d 562
Idaho2012Background
- Stem sustained severe injuries including amputation when a forklift toppled after driving over a water meter cover on Prouty’s Premises.
- Stem sued Prouty for premises liability; alleged the water meter lid was defective for heavy forklift use and sought negligence per se for failing to obtain a building permit.
- District court granted Prouty summary judgment on premises liability, then granted summary judgment on negligence per se after reconsideration.
- Stem argued site engineering would have been required during permitting and would have revealed the defect; Prouty argued site engineering is discretionary and not clearly mandated by code.
- Appellate review is under Idaho summary-judgment standard; court affirms the district court’s rulings, dismissing all claims against Prouty.
- City of Garden City’s involvement was severed from the action prior to appeal; separate city duty not trial issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prouty owed Stem a duty and breached it regarding the water cover | Stem contends Prouty knew/should have known the cover was dangerous | Prouty had no knowledge or reason to know of defect; no breach shown | No genuine issue; no breach proven by Stem |
| Whether negligence per se attaches for failing to obtain a building permit | Failure to obtain permit would have triggered site engineering revealing defect | Site engineering is discretionary and not clearly required by code | Negligence per se not established; site engineering not a clearly defined statutory requirement |
| Proximate cause issue for negligence per se claim | Permit omission proximate cause of injury via site engineering | No clear statutory site engineering mandate; permitting omission not proximate cause | Not proven; district court not error in granting summary judgment |
| Whether site engineering is a clearly defined requirement under the building codes | Code requires site engineering for permit | Code does not mandate site engineering; discretion exists | Site engineering not clearly defined; cannot sustain negligence per se |
| Whether city’s permitting process would have required site inspection to prevent injury | Permitting would have triggered inspection revealing defect | Inspection not guaranteed; discretion in engineering decisions | Not enough to establish proximate cause; no liability |
Key Cases Cited
- McDevitt v. Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., 151 Idaho 280, 255 P.3d 1166 (Idaho 2011) (elements of negligence; duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Holzheimer v. Johannesen, 125 Idaho 397, 871 P.2d 814 (Idaho 1994) (status of entrant; invitee duty of reasonable safety and concealed dangers)
- Walton v. Potlatch Corp., 116 Idaho 892, 781 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1989) (duty to warn of known or reasonably discoverable dangers)
- Ahles v. Tabor, 136 Idaho 393, 34 P.3d 1076 (Idaho 2001) (negligence per se when statute clearly defines standard of conduct)
- Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615, 717 P.2d 1033 (Idaho 1986) (proximate cause element in negligence per se)
- Sanchez v. Galey, 112 Idaho 609, 733 P.2d 1234 (Idaho 1986) (negligence per se proximate-cause analysis)
- Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983) (negligence per se standards and causation)