Zimmerman v. City of Lewiston
154 Idaho 686
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Thompson pursued an ITCA claim against the City of Lewiston for negligent design of a storm-water drain system, with Zimmerman substituted as plaintiff after Thompson’s Auto Sales filed for bankruptcy.
- The City replaced the valley gutter with a bubble-up system in 2003; Zimmerman alleges the new design failed and caused flood damages to Thompson’s property.
- Zimmerman argued the ITCA discretionary-immunity exception does not shield negligent design, and alternatively that design immunity should apply if the plan met standards or was pre-approved.
- The district court granted summary judgment on discretionary immunity but denied design immunity; after reconsideration, remaining claims were dismissed or stayed, leading to this appeal by Zimmerman.
- This Court undertakes a two-step ITCA immunity analysis: first, whether a tort action is stated; second, whether any ITCA exception applies; the Court vacates and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- The outcome: district court’s dismissal is vacated and remand ordered; Zimmerman wins on appeal for further evaluation of design-immunity facts and potential discretionary-immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary function immunity applies to negligent design claims under ITCA | Zimmerman contends it does not shield negligent design | City contends discretion in decision to replace system warrants immunity | Discretionary function immunity does not apply to negligent design claims |
| Whether the design exception provides immunity given genuine issues of material fact | Zimmerman asserts design plan did not meet standards or pre-approval | City argues plan conformance or advance approval supports immunity | Genuine issues of material fact preclude design-immunity summary judgment |
| Whether the City is entitled to immunity under ITCA § 6-904(7) for the operational plan | Plan approved in advance by appropriate authority | No clear evidence of proper advance approval; council awareness of plan lacking | Not entitled to design-immunity summary judgment for lack of clear advance approval or standard conformance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755 (Idaho 1986) (ITCA aims toward liability; limitations on immunity must be narrowly construed)
- Rees v. Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 143 Idaho 10, 137 P.3d 397 (Idaho 2006) (ITCA liberal construction; relief to injured plaintiffs)
- Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 126 Idaho 454, 886 P.2d 330 (Idaho 1994) (Discretionary function vs. design immunity; plan/design existence matters)
- Bingham v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 117 Idaho 147, 786 P.2d 538 (Idaho 1989) (Discretionary function interplay with design immunity; plan must be in final design)
- Brown v. City of Pocatello, 148 Idaho 802, 229 P.3d 1164 (Idaho 2010) (Two-pronged test for design-immunity under §6-904(7))