Jesse v. Lindsley

JESSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Yvonne LINDSLEY, Defendant-Respondent.

Ted

No. 34037. Idaho,

Supreme Court

Boise, 2008 Term. March 6, 2008.

June July 22,

Rehearing Denied 2008.

Clements, McNichols, P.A., Brown & Lew- iston, Bentley respondent. Stromberg G. argued. JONES,

J. Justice. walking While rain to apart- another complex, ment her Yvonne Jesse decided planting to walk area in order to avoid covering considerable of water amount driveway. walking, was As she Jesse fell, stepped in sustaining a sinkhole injuries. landlord, multiple sued Jesse her Lindsley, failing Ted for maintain the premises in Lindsley a safe condition. summary judgment, alleging moved for that exculpatory an in the lease clause absolved injuries. him from for granted district agreed summary court judgment Lindsley. appeal- favor of Jesse ed to summary this Court. vacate the We judgment and proceed- remand further ings.

I. largely The facts of are undisput- this case ed. Ted Lindsley Valley Apart- Vista owns Grangeville, ments in Idaho. Yvonne Jesse apartment rented Lindsley from in 2000. apartment lease contains an clause, provides: That the owner shall not be liable for damages due to either or accidents by slipping, falling caused or other sources that occur either in the apartment building, the outside area of the apartment building, or on the outside land, paving the lot apartment building sidewalks where the located or act of God that either directly indirectly may bodily cause harm of nature. 8,May injured

On Jesse herself when walking she fell in a while sinkhole in the planting adjacent area to her apart- mother’s ment, which complex. was in the same It raining heavily, was and Jesse walked in the planting driveway area beside the order to Lewiston, Clark & Feeney, appellant. avoid a “considerable amount” of water which Paul argued. T. Clark driveway.1 previous- ran down the Jesse had According deposition, 1. way her water in the fell in the hole on the to her mother’s driveway addition, apartment, would been have over her shoes. which was downstairs. The Com- deposition plaint alleges way Jesse testified in her that she she on her to her car. file, together area when it was and admissions on with the ly walked affidavits, any, Lindsley genu if show there is no and had informed about the raining, ine issue as to material fact and that the there several times. hole moving party judgment is entitled as Lindsley on a theo- sued Jesse Id. at P.3d at matter of law.” alleging he have known the sink- ry, should 56(c)). (citing R. Civ. All P. present- dangerous condition hole was disputed liberally facts are be construed risk to tenants and that an unreasonable ed nonmoving party, favor and all reason prior to her he should remedied able inferences that can be drawn from the summary judgment fall. moved record are to be drawn favor of the non- grounds that the on the 327, moving party. Id. at 48 P.3d at 656. If liability. him from The district relieved all fact, genuine there is no issue of material for granted summary judgment Linds- court only question remains, of law over which basis, stating: ley on that Infanger this Court exercises free review. strictly Today Idaho a landlord liable Salmon, 47, 45, City 44 P.3d of statutory warranty of of for breaches the (2002). 1100, 1102 parties dispute not do § habitability he [under 6-320] I.C. and here, pertinent presented the facts so we are regarding all other must exercise due questions with of law. premises. aspects of the rented or leased fairly Competing straight-for- with those B. right of to notions the Idahoans ward away contract their duties May § Jesse Not Invoke 6-320 I.C. negligence. their own Lindsley § Jesse contends violated I.C. 6- Court, appealed contending to this she Jesse statutory implied Idaho’s version of the pursue to a claim I.C. was entitled under warranty habitability.2 Silver Com Creek that, event, exculpa- § the 6-320 and Petra, Inc., puters v. public policy tory against clause was (2002). reads, statute unenforceable. here, pertinent “A tenant file an against damages action a landlord for II. specific performance Maintaining ... In we whether this address Jesse premises in a manner hazardous to § bring a claim I.C. 6-320 and can under safety § 6- health tenant ...” I.C. purporting 320(a)(3). whether clause that The district court found liability for absolve a landlord from acciden- § alleged fall was not I.C. 6- within tal the tenant sustained in planting because area was public policy and unenforce- contravention apart tended to be a means access to her able. alleges ment. the district court erred Jesse recognize was

because it failed that Jesse “compelled” planting area due to walk A. heavy and water accumu rain that had Review Standard of addition, driveway. In lated on the Jesse appeal grant Lindsley told about the numerous On a mo sinkhole summary Lindsley to this judgment, ap prior this Court times. knew tion Since by the accident that had to across the plies the same standard used district Jesse walk water, originally ruling on the motion. area because excessive court Car Inc., sinkhole, failed to fix she Linds Mgmt., v. Barker contends nell ley Summary judg in a hazardous maintained condition, Lindsley § depositions, “if ar- proper pleadings, under I.C. ment is negligence throughout appeal, ¿irgues § § Lindsley I.C. no claim 2. On 6-320 has and/or complaint application based her proceedings. because Plaintiff address The district court did thus, solely theory negligence. we, law on a of common claim in its decision and response, parties Jesse and the contends do likewise. court have treated her claim as violation of I.C. gues applicable 6-320 is not here be- the landlord’s reasonable I.C. exercise such, complains the defect of did not cause Jesse care. As the clause should not be using dwelling for prevent Lindsley her from its enforced. contends that habitation, citing purpose of parties intended is enforceable because are free to applying warranty another, they cases the common law contract with as did here habitability. Further, agreeing to the clause. he contends the accident issue here not fall would stat I.C. 6-320 is a strict within I.C. and that there is no Computers, 136 Idaho at ute. Creek Silver argument legitimate public policy gives prove A 42 P.3d at 676. tenant need not protection greater Legisla- tenants than the I.C. 6- obtain relief under ture codified. pursue could her claim 320. Id. Jesse considering arguments, Before these it statute, proving even without under would well to consider a landlord failing repair negligent tenant, including residential owes to a 320(d) However, the sinkhole. ex 6— initially role of 6-320. This Section Court pressly provides: shall “Before tenant Ordway, discussed section Worden v. section, standing to file an action under 719, (1983), 105 672 a P.2d 1049 case (3) give days must he his landlord three involving repair a obligation landlord’s notice, listing or written each failure breach There, premises. leased the Court declined premised which his action will adopt implied warranty a common law of requiring performance written demand habitability, based Legislature’s on the enact- Although cure.” Jesse did inform ment 672 of Section 6-320. Id. at P.2d times, defective of of the condition a number declining adopt requir- at 1053. In a rule allegation having given there is no of her ing keep landlords residential in standing written notice. Jesse lacks repair, a state of habitable stated: Court claim bring a under the statute. legislature already The Idaho has acted in statutory this area enacted a version C. implied warranty habitability of the the- Exculpatory Overly The Clause Is ory. I.C. 6-320. This re- Court should Broad and Unenforceable frain changing expanding from a com- The district court found the area rule, mon law where the has scope statutory was not within the of the already acted in the same area. warranty habitability because landlord Id. The Court reiterated that Section 6-320 did not intend that a area to be means of statutory a implied constituted version of the addition, apartment. access In the warranty habitability Stephens in v. provision specifically negated liability lease Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 any personal injury on occurred the There, the Court considered the landlord’s premises. expanse exculpa- Given the duty injured a tenant falling where was when tory language plant- and the finding that the stairway provided a to her access beyond ing area was ambit of habita- apartment. The Court noted that under the covenant, bility the district court concluded law, a common generally landlord was Lindsley successfully immunized himself tenant damage resulting liable to the liability. from dangerous existing conditions at the leasing.

Jesse contends the district court erred time of the Id. at at However, stated, when it held the clause was en- 49. today Court “[W]e public forceable because the clause violates decide to leave the common-law rule and its policy. contention, behind, support To exceptions Jesse adopt and we rule that a duty relies on landlord’s common law is under a landlord to exercise reason light light exercise reasonable care in of all the able of all the circumstances.” circumstances and I.C. Jesse holding Id. at 678 P.2d at 50. was This agreement claims clause in the rental “Our footnoted: embracement of this rule is public policy by eliminating violates Idaho’s supported legislature’s further our enact-

75 However, implied look with on such version of the courts disfavor ment Id., attempts to avoid and construe such habitability, I.C. 6-320.” warranty of strictly person relying (citing provisions against the at 50 n. 3. n. P.2d at 258 678 1049). them, especially person Worden, when that is the at at P.2d preparer of document. Id. Clauses which visited the issue Ste- again The Court speak clearly exclude must and di- P.2d Fleming, vens rectly particular conduct of the defen- (1989), daughters surviving wherein In dant which caused the harm issue. Id. seeking tenant were a deceased residential landlord, Lindsley, drafted the dece- damages from landlord for their exculpatory clause. This Court will thus con- apartment death in an fire. dent’s strictly against Lindsley, strue Court stated: speak clearly the clause must and direct- required to reason A landlord is exercise ly to the conduct to be immunized from light tenants of all able care to his liability. ... Stephens v. circumstances. Stearns adopting reasonable care standard rule general sustaining ... the Idaho Su for landlords Steams agreements exempting party by way footnote preme Court noted subject exceptions: to two supported by a statu holding that its “(1) party disadvantage at an obvious warranty tory implied version of the power; bargaining habitability, applica § 6-320. When utility companies, (public involved common ble, specific statutory provisions such as carriers).”3 Co., Valley Lee v. Sun 107 Ida may prove Fire useful the Uniform Code (quoting ho delineating minimum standards which 499-500, Rawlings, 93 Idaho at 465 P.2d at binding every upon owner of a rented are 110-11). affronting “Unless in circumstances point provisions premises. on code Such public policy, it no of of is the business ready a stan provide measure the base give the courts to decline to effect to con failure to stan dard of care and meet such parties freely tracts which and deliber may if the per be se dards ately made.” States ex rel. and United for Admin, designed or statutes ordinances were Housing Admin’r Fed. Benefit of harm prevent type the which occurred. Inc., Troy-Parisian, 115 226 v. F.2d (9th Cir.1940), quoted Rawlings, 525-26, P.2d at 1198-99. Id. at 777 Lee, 111. In at 465 P.2d at the Court that a must rule is landlord the utilities obvi named and common carriers as the circum exercise reasonable under examples owing duty, a parties public ous protection for his residential stances may who but we also noted there be others I.C. duty This includes the under tenant. Lee, public duty in Idaho. owe a premises in a man 6-320 maintain public 695 P.2d at 363. “The of a at idea that is hazardous to the health or ner not closely public duty is related to idea of safety of the We turn to tenant. now it of the policy and is within domain application of the clause. by public, deter legislature, elected policies.” Id. contract a fundamen mine such duties Whether Freedom of is public policy question concept underlying the contracts. a contract violates law of tal Co., to determine from all the Rawlings Layne Pump Bowler 93 of law for court & (1970). 496, 499, A of each Bakk P.2d facts and circumstances case. Idaho 465 110 LLC, 141 may Spring-Wareham, from Thunder contracting party himself er v. absolve (2005). 185, 189, con 108 P.3d and liabilities under the Idaho certain duties tract, may found forth subject policy limitations. “Public and set certain Newcomb, Inc., statutes, judicial consti decisions or the Nafziger & v. G.T. Anderson tution.” Id. habitability disadvantage warranty for Linds- any creates does claim she had 3. Jesse not argues bargaining power, premises second ley but that the in a condition. to maintain the safe theory exception applies that the question nothing The first is whether I.C. in the providing any lease Jesse abil- 6-320(a)(3), requiring landlords to maintain ity to access the any area or other premises leased in a non-hazardous condi areas not premises included leased. tion, public policy states a of the State of public policy dictating Nor is there a that 6-320(a)(3) provides Idaho. Section that a necessary areas not for habitation may against action tenant file an landlord subject tenant should be specific require- to a damages specific performance for maintaining ment of the same in a safe condi- maintaining premises in a manner haz tion. safety ardous to the health or of the tenant. remaining question liability provision whether I.C. 6-320 is a strict that primarily giving clause is enforceable as writ directed toward the ten leverage ant ten. The clause require keep the landlord to reads: such, premises good order. As it That the owner shall not be liable for public policy establishes a landlord damages injuries due to either or accidents premises must maintain in a manner that is by slipping, falling caused or from safety hazardous to health or other sources that occur either tenant. This Court relied I.C. 6- apartment building, the outside area of the 320(a)(3) adopted when it the rule that a apartment building, or on the outside landlord is under a to exercise reason land, paving of the lot or light able care in of all the circumstances. apartment sidewalks where the building is Worden, See 105 Idaho at 672 P.2d at located or from act of God that either 1053; Stearns, 678 P.2d at directly indirectly may bodily cause 50; Fleming, 116 Idaho at harm of nature. essence, at 1198-99. In this Court concluded purports to relieve Legislature that the policy established a injuries or accidents caused provide landlords to safe habitation for their slipping falling, here, as occurred tenants, separate apart from the issue of Further, “from other sources.” pur- it whether one recover under the ports to him absolve for such provisions Certainly, it might occur apart- either would not be the policy of the state to building ment or outside the building, but provide allow landlords to hazardous and un still premises. short, on the In premises safe the clause to their tenants. attempts to relieve the landlord of question The next is the extent of any type injury, wherever it oc- public policy the coverage. Bakker tells us cur. The clause is too broad and not does that a public policy declaration of in a statute speak clearly directly particular to the targeted is to be to the problem conduct of the defendant intended to im- Legislature addressed expres and an munized. Nafziger, See Anderson & 100 public policy sion of in a provision might P.2d at 712. itWhile necessarily does not extend to the entire be reasonable to absolve the landlord for chapter code in which expression is con injuries or accidents slipping caused Bakker, tained. 141 Idaho at falling apartment in building, in the out- P.3d at Looking at Section 6- apartment side of the building, or on the 320(a)(3) context, in provision states that premises land, outside pave- of the lot or “premises” are to be maintained a non (where ments or sidewalks the same were condition, hazardous necessarily means condition), not maintained in a hazardous premises. is, the leased That the landlord is to exempt landlord from for acts obligated maintain the covered God, exemption from acci- by the lease in a non-hazardous condition. dents or “from other sources” is In this apart would include the simply too broad. areas, ment and parking common i.e. the (included space lease), driveway, side While we have not question considered the walks, halls, stairways providing access enforceability of an exculpa- overbroad apartment. However, clause, Jesse’s tory there is we have considered the issue of tenant, jury it is for a whether the provi decide contract enforceability of an overbroad Id. duty a contractual has been breached. See Since area where in another sion strictly con agreement clause in the rental is disfavored provision is compete enforceable, in con Lindsley not to continues to owe a not strued —covenants Freiburger v. J- employment. See tracts of to his tenants to exercise reasonable Inc., Engineers, juryA light U-B of all the circumstances. A covenant not whether he exercised such care must decide only if and enforceable compete is reasonable it The district court erred when this case. “(1) neces greater than covenant is summary Lindsley on granted judgment legiti employer in some sary protect claim. (2) interest; unduly is not mate business (3) employee; oppressive harsh III. Applying Id. injurious public.” is not summary We vacate the district court’s here, appears it that the principle the same judgment and remand the case for further Lindsley any liability absolving language opinion. proceedings consistent with this anywhere property on his occurrence may have Although he simply too broad. Tem Justices BURDICK and Pro TROUT relieving himself legitimate interest some concur. injuries in areas not slip and fall acts of premises or from the tenant’s leased EISMANN, dissenting. Chief Justice God, liability for himself from to release majority has violated the Ida- Because simply goes too far. nature occurrence by usurping power ho of the Constitution all-encompassing simply clause is respectfully I legislature, dissent. and unenforceable. too broad simply whether an The issue this case D. in a lease is valid. Co., Pump Rawlings Layne & Bowler Lindsley Jury Must Decide Whether 496, 499-500, Exercised Reasonable Care (1970), “express agreements we held that Lindsley negli on a Jesse sued parties exempting one of the theory, alleging he should have known gence except where: are to be sustained dangerous condition that was a the sinkhole disadvantage in bar- party is at an obvious tenants, unreasonable risk to presented an in- power; gaining [or] prior to should have remedied which he utility car- (public companies, common volved in that she fall.4 Jesse also noted riers).” case no contention There is with the problem formed disadvantage in that Jesse was at obvious times, had been and that she sinkhole several validity power. the of the bargaining previously area forced to walk a hinges upon whether exculpatory clause driveway. This Court rain in the due to the duty public was involved. a landlord is modern trend that follows the Co., 976, Valley 107 In Lee v. Idaho Sun duty a to exercise reasonable under Stearns, (1984), the issue 361 we addressed 106 695 P.2d light of all the circumstances. duty the of a where 258, the of the existence 678 P.2d at 50. Once Idaho at regulate tort legislature had acted to a owed to the plaintiff establishes such 685, (2004) (quoting Smith v. Idaho 693 Lindsley argues not be inval- P.3d 4. this clause should Union, 680, Univ. Fed. Credit at issue here oc- State because the accident idated 19, (“Courts 684, (1988)) 23 do portion premises 760 of the where curred on roving power walking. possess to rewrite contracts anticipate a tenant landlord would not Second, Therefore, equitable.”). more scope order to make them of the it is outside support this record to argument there is evidence in is una- reasonable care. This exercise First, problem of the that she advised vailing must look at claim reasons. we for two action. validity. and he took no a number of occasions its on as a whole to determine this clause Therefore, used the reason to know she power he had possess to rewrite We do not See, garden area question, makes the which voidability. e.g., route Shawver clause to avoid 354, 362, Estates, LLC, purpose. part of the Huckleberry Idaho Lee, ties,” groups. plaintiff In between two but it did party not absolve the injured while on horseback ride con- public duty imposed by “the [statute].” by by guide ducted licensed the Idaho legislature has not ad going Outfitters & Guides Board. Prior to rights dressed the pertaining and duties ride, plaintiff signed the horseback had personal injuries arising out of the relation agreement holding guide and his em- ship between legis landlord and tenant. The any injury ployer he harmless incur. lature has enacted Idaho Code We held that which is “a implied version of the legislature where the has addressed the warranty habitability theory,” Worden v. rights pertaining personal and duties 723, Ordway, 672 P.2d injuries arising relationship out of the be- such, provisions “As of the i.e., groups, tween two employers/employ- lease, statute are of the and the dam ees, guides/participants, outfitters and and ages recoverable under the statute are those granted has group limited to one recoverable for breach contract.’’ Silver exchange for adherence to Petra, Computers, Inc., Creek Inc. v. duties, then “public such duties become a (2002) (em Idaho duty” exception within general added). phasis Idaho imposes Code validating rule contracts. rights contractual and duties between land Therefore, agreement while the between tenants, lords and it does not address their Valley plaintiff Sun and does absolve Sun rights and pertaining personal duties inju Valley liabilities, from common law it does ries. Valley not absolve Sun possible violation public duty im- example, For the statutes in Lee included a posed by statement that it legislative was the purpose 107 Idaho at 695 P.2d at 364. to “define responsibility those areas of and Lee, affirmative acts for which outfitters and

Under public duty existence of a loss, guides shall be liable for damage, was based the fact that “the injury, and to rights has addressed define those pertain- and duties risks which the participant ing personal expressly arising out of assumes and for relationship groups.” recovery.”5 between two there can be no Id. In The statutes set circumstance, outfitter,6 forth clause ab- the duties of an the duties of party solved the from “common guide,7 law liabili- participant,8 the duties of a and the provides: 5. Idaho Code 6-1201 6-1203. DUTIES OF AN OUTFITTER. All offering professional outfitters services in this Every 6-1201. LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. facilities, provide equipment, state shall and year, numbers, rapidly increasing the inhab- agreed upon services as advertised or as be- itants state of nonresidents participant. tween the outfitter and the All enjoying are the recreational value of Idaho's services, facilities, equipment provided by mountains, rivers, streams, many of which safety outfitters in this state shall conform to ordinary are remote and far removed for auto requirements and other chapter set forth in importance travel. The tourist trade is of vital Code, title promul- the rules Idaho, to the state of and the services offered gated by guides the Idaho outfitters and board guides significantly licensed outfitters and by chapter created title Idaho Code. economy contribute to the of the state of Ida- legislature recognizes ho. The that there are provides: 7. Idaho Code 6-1204 inherent pro- risks in the recreational activities Any guide 6-1204. DUTIES OF A GUIDE. by vided outfitters which should be understood providing personal services for an outfitter in by participant. each These risks are essential- this state shall conform to the standard of care ly impossible by to eliminate outfitters and expected profession of members of his and he guides. purpose chapter It is the of this to comply requirements shall with all duties and responsibility define those areas of and affir- 21, 36, placed by chapter on him title Idaho mative guides acts for which outfitters and Code, by promulgated by and the rules loss, damage, shall injury, be liable for or and guides by Idaho outfitters and chapter board created to participant define those risks which the ex- 21, 36, title Idaho Code. pressly assumes and for which there can be no provides: § 8. Idaho Code 6-1205 recovery. 6-1205. DUTIES OF PARTICIPANTS. It is 6. provides: Idaho Code recognized that some recreational activities Before have liability guides.9 standing and There are a tenant shall to of outfitters section, an file action under this he in Idaho 6- must provisions Code comparable no give days his three landlord written to the tort purport It not address 320. does notice, listing each failure or breach regu liability If Section 6-320 of landlords. premised his and action will be writ- landlords, liability we of then lated the tort requiring performance ten or Stearns, demand Stephens held would not have If, days cure. within three after ser- 41, (1984), 258, notice, any vice of listed failure or that a adopt the rule landlord that “we or performed breach not been cured has care in duty to exercise reasonable under a landlord, by may proceed the tenant to would light of the circumstances.” We all damages spe- commence an action for and any simply recovery per for have held performance. cific brought Section injuries sonal must be under 6-320. A is an tenant who there unsafe believes give condition on the leased must § 6-320 did Even if Idaho Code constitute days the landlord three written notice to by duty imposed statute” under our “a so, If cure. landlord does not do Lee, remedy then is the decision in (a) options: tenant has two the tenant can remedy by that statute. That was provided performance bring for to action stated, “Therefore, we holding our in Lee. As requiring obtain a court order landlord to Valley Sun and agreement while between (b) problem, cure the or the tenant can cure Valley from com- plaintiff does absolve Sun problem bring seeking and an action liabilities, it does not Sun mon law absolve damages doing recover for the cost of so. Valley possible violation of Jesse did not either of those seek remedies by public duty imposed 6-1204.” in this case. 979, 695 P.2d at 364. Jesse’s 107 Idaho at Ordway, simply case would be to Worden v. recourse (1983), of this Court provisions recover Idaho Code said it under (d) pro- changing expanding “should or statute refrain from 6-320. Subsection rule, a common where the has vides: law guides provides: by 9. Idaho outfitters and are hazard- Code 6-1206 conducted regardless participants ous of all feasible OF OUTFITTERSAND LIABILITY safety which can be taken. Partici- measures GUIDES, (a) guide or licensed outfitter No pants duty to act a as would shall have acting employment of his the course shall reasonably prudent engaging man when in re- damages participant or liable by offered outfit- creational activities licensed participant damage to such unless such or guides Participants shall ters and in this state. injury directly proximately by or caused not to: guide (a) comply any failure the outfitter or with act which shall with the Do interfere operation chapter running guide's placed by of an or or outfitter's the duties on him title activities, Code, such when activities conform by Idaho the rules of Idaho or guides Idaho board, the rules of the outfitters and by guides outfitters or duties requirements chapter board and to the by placed guide provi- on or such outfitter Code; title chapter. sions of this (b) guide’s equipment or Use outfitter’s (b) The limitations on created participant or or services if the does facilities chapter only apply shall to outfitters or ability to use such facilities or have the guides appropriately provi- under the licensed safely equipment instruc- or services without Code, chapter sions title participant requested has tions until the only guide acting or when the outfitter with- permit instruction to safe received sufficient employment. in the In the event course of his usage; injury damage participant that there conduct, (c) Engage harmful or will- guide, of an outfitter or and there action fully negligently engage type con- exemption is no for such outfitter injury to or duct which contributes causes act, guide provisions of this under the any person; comparative negli- rules (d) activity self-initiated Embark gence existing laws of the state of Idaho guide informing the outfitter or without first apply. shall receiving permission his and from intentions engage guide in such self- outfitter or activity. initiated already in the same area.” Unfortu- suggestion acted There is also no here that the i.e., nately, majority exception applies, party does not show the same first that either legislature has not was at an in disadvantage bargaining restraint. The addressed obvious personal injuries power. rights Although might and duties for it often be the case arising bargaining power out of the landlord-tenant relation- that a tenant has less than landlord, only ship. respect certainly It has done so with there is no evidence liability. majority contractual The has offered here that that is the case in this stepped particular in Depending upon and created strict tort situation. mar- conditions, part of might superior landlords. ket a tenant bargaining power in a oversup- rental market “The power Idaho Constitution vests the plied properties. only with available The in Legislature____ enact substantive laws upon plaintiff basis which might challenge Just as Article II of the Idaho Constitution exculpatory this case that the prohibits Legislature usurping pow “public duty.” landlord had a properly belonging judicial depart ers specifically This pub Court addressed the ment, provision prohibit so does duty exception lic Valley Lee v. Sun Com judiciary improperly invading prov pany, supra. case, Valley In that Sun Com Legislature.” ince of the In re SRBA Case pany, which was a licensed outfitter and 246, 255, No. 912 P.2d guide, required guests electing participate (1995). majority Because the has violat equestrian trail sign rides to a “Rental II usurping power ed Article Agreement Animals for Hire” which legislature, respectfully I dissent. —Saddle pertinent part stated that: Upon my acceptance of horse equip- Justice W. concurs. JONES ment, acknowledge I that I assume full JONES, W. dissenting. J. responsibility my safety. I further un- risk, my derstand that I ride own and I respectfully I dissent from the Court’s de agree entity, officers, to hold the above its cision on the ignores longstand basis that it etc., employees, every harmless from ing governing law Idaho the landlord- all claim which injury, arise from relationship tenant existing and the law of might occur from use of said horse premises liability. It also deviates from this equipment, in myself, my favor of and/or holding generally Court’s decisions one heirs, representatives, dependents. I is free to contract to absolve oneself from understand that the repre- stable does not certain only duties and liabilities with two quality sent or warrant the or character of exceptions: party is at an obvious the horse furnished. disadvantage in bargaining power; or In determining enforceability public duty of that (public utility compa involved clause, nies, carriers). exculpatory this Court held that common Valley Lee v. Sun imposed public 6-1201 Company, 976, 978, Sun 695 P.2d Valley (1985); Company, rendering Rawlings Layne & Bowler important clause unenforceable. Pump 496, 499, distinc- Company, 93 Idaho 465 P.2d 107, 110 case, tion (1970); present between that case and the Nafziger Anderson & v. G.T. however, Newcomb, Inc., granted is that limited guides to licensed outfitters present nobody In the exchange for adherence to suggests require- that the clause in the making ments of ruling rental contract its ambiguous or that it was in Valley Lee v. Company, Sun fact this Court stat- voluntarily the contract signed ed as parties. follows: only both argument advanced is that the policy clause violates attempt We do not gener- to articulate a therefore should not be enforced. As al al applicable However, rule to all statutes. noted, however, ready firmly this Court has we do hold where the had ad- stated that such clauses rights are enforceable with pertaining dressed the and duties exceptions the two personal injuries noted above. arising out of the rela- Le., tionship groups, employ- two personal injury between causes of action for guides/partici- er-employees, outfitters and Reading entirety event. of the statute granted, pants, and has limited to legislature indicates that the never intended group exchange adherence to apply personal statute to to an action for duties, then such duties become a injuries, but only rather intended the statute ‘public duty’ exception within the provide to right means to enforce a tenant’s general validating exculpatory rule con- require repair or cure of defects in the added.) (Emphasis tracts. premises premises that render the less than above, habitable. As noted this Court should present nothing there is not utilize produce major this statute to § granting 6-320 favorable limited liabil- change in premises liability the law of as it ity in exchange to landlords adherence pertains personal injuries to tenants. statute, prescribed the duties in the which is entirely different from I.C. 6-1201 which Valley Company,

was involved Lee v. Sun basis, therefore,

supra. There is no imposed any

which to hold that I.C.

“public Accordingly, on landlords. firmly

general Rawlings rule established in Layne Pump Company, supra;

v. & Bowler Newcomb, Nafziger and Anderson & v. G.T. 233 P.3d 12 Inc., supra, ignored. should not be DELUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, Berneta It should also be noted that as stated majority, 6-320 is strict Computers, statute. Silver Creek Inc. v. Pe- STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY tra, Inc., COMPANY, Defendant- nothing There is in the statute to Respondent. legislature sup- indicate that the intended to plant long-existing negli- common law No. 34202. gence applied premises liability standard involving personal cases landlord/tenant Idaho, Supreme Court of injury with a strict standard. The Boise, June 2008 Term. majority might decision of the well result in becoming strictly person- landlords liable for July 1, 2008. al which occur to tenants on their property. Absent a clear indication that the result,

legislature intended such a this Court lightly disregard previous

should not long-

standing premises liability law.

Apart from the fact that I.C. 6-320 did impose public duty upon landowners for discussed, already present

the reasons plaintiff right rely upon

case has no specifically

statute event. The statute

requires that before a tenant file an section, give

action under that he must his days’

landlord three written notice of each

defect or each breach of the agreement upon

rental action will premised, clearly which was not done in present Additionally, case. there is noth- 6-320(d)

ing in I.C. that it indicate applied

intended to be

Case Details

Case Name: Jesse v. Lindsley

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 6, 2008

Citation: 233 P.3d 1

Docket Number: 34037

Court Abbreviation: Idaho