540 P.3d 990
Idaho2023Background
- Yellowstone Log Homes owned a rental property in Rigby, Idaho, that suffered extensive damage when an excavation company (BorTek), hired to install fiber-optic cable, bored through a sewer lateral serving the property.
- Prior to excavation, the City of Rigby was notified and marked some underground utilities, but failed to mark the specific service lateral connecting to Yellowstone’s property.
- As a result of the unmarked line, the excavation caused raw sewage to back up into Yellowstone’s property, rendering it uninhabitable and causing significant damages.
- Yellowstone demanded the City repair the line and provide compensation, but the City refused, asserting it had no such duty. Yellowstone then filed suit for negligence per se under the Idaho Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act and for common law negligence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding Yellowstone lacked standing under the Act and that the City owed no duty; the court also denied both parties’ motions for attorney fees. Yellowstone appealed, and the City cross-appealed the denial of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under the Act | Yellowstone (end user) should have standing as Act was intended to protect the public | Only excavators or facility owners have standing under the Act | Court held Yellowstone had standing; district court erred in concluding otherwise |
| Negligence per se under the Act | City had statutory duty to mark service laterals with reasonable accuracy | City lacked info; thus complied or had no such obligation | Factual issue exists; summary judgment improper |
| Common law negligence duty | City owed duty of ordinary care re: property and public right-of-way | No duty; lateral was owned/maintained by Yellowstone | City owed duty; factual dispute precludes summary judgment |
| Discretionary function immunity | City not entitled; failed to act with ordinary care | Acts were discretionary, entitled to immunity | Factual dispute as to breach; immunity not established at summary judgment stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Purdy v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 138 Idaho 443 (Idaho 2003) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Estate of Becker v. Callahan, 140 Idaho 522 (Idaho 2004) (summary judgment standards and role of disputed facts)
- O’Guin v. Bingham County, 142 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2005) (elements of negligence under Idaho law)
- Nation v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 144 Idaho 177 (Idaho 2007) (negligence per se requirements under Idaho law)
- Rees v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 143 Idaho 10 (Idaho 2006) (governmental immunity interpretation under Idaho Tort Claims Act)