*1 juriеs compen- Compensation Law to her husband which were the Workmen’s pay Compensation sated under employer surety shall the Workmen’s his Act, separate damages compensation in the and to her claim amounts provides: persons specified. barred I.C. 72-203 which hereinafter ‘Accident,’ law, rights herein in this means “The and remedies as used personal employee to an on account of a unexpected, undesigned, and unlooked an event, to com- happen- injury for which hе entitled mishap, or untoward pensation under this act shall exclude all suddenly the in- ing and connected with occurs, rights em- dustry remedies of such in and which can which ployee, personal representatives, his de- definitely as to time when and located kin, pendents, place occurred, inju- or next of at common law causing where it otherwise, injury.” ry, on account of such as defined in this law. judgment dismissing The trial court’s inju- ‘personal The terms ‘injury’ and appellant’s complaint is law, affirmed. ry,’ as same in this are used only shall be construed to include an in- respondent. jury accident, caused as above de- fined, in J., which results violence physical body. McFADDEN, structure of the The said JJ., terms in no case in- be construed to occupational
clude an in disease form and non-occupational dis-
eases as injury.” result from an contends that the loss since
of consortium does not involve “violence to рhysical body,” structure of her CLUB, INC., PISTOL LEWISTON damages claim for for loss of consortium Plaintiff-Respondent, abrogated was not by the Com- Workmen’s pensation Act. The occurrence lead BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS appellant’s loss of consortium was COUNTY, OF NEZ PERCE De- as, complaint her fendant-Appellant. plaintiff [appellant’s “[T]he husband] cave on him great much dirt of Supreme Court Idaho. oppressive weight causing him to be se- verely crushed pressure under and im- pact covering imprisoning his
body except his head and im- requiring
mediate dig action his co-workers to
him hospital out and take him to the he pe-
where was maintained long for a
riod of inju- time because of his severe permanent
ries lasting.” which are appellant’s
From the complaint appar- it is
ent that her loss consortium caused was
by personal injury to her husband involv- physical violence to the structure of his
body. appellant’s Since claim for loss personal consortium arises out in- Compensation amendments Workmen’s Act as constituted plicable January 1, amended action. effective 1972. The Act to this *2 Gen., Keeton, Sp. Atty.
Paul C. Asst. Mosman, Lewiston, Roy Atty., for E. Pros. defendant-appellant. Felton, Lewiston, Henry plain- J.
tiff-respondent. McQUADE, Justice. a
This actiоn concerns passed by the Nez Perce resolution September Commissioners. On the Nez Perce follow- adopted containing a resolution prohibitions: arеas That of Nez “(A) side and the County on both the north River, com- south side of the Clearwater with the Snake mencing at its confluence point a one extending River and eаst to bridge, Spaulding (1) mile above the old part of are not a and in all areas which Lewiston, person shall any fire arm within one-half (Y2) River. mile of the Clearwater rifle, firе pistol or other (B) That no single projectile arm which fires one slug, discharged within mile of the Clearwater River defined in above.” (A) boundaries plaintiff-respondent, Lewiston Club, Inc., that is used leases firing range the area resolution, adopted except for the 31- resolution. Pursuant to I.C. § pas- generalities it- stated resolution appellant appealed sage self. The also silent the ordinance. No justify the court, specific facts which would conducted the issue deprive ap- exerсise of validity of the was sub- resolution *3 pellants property. the use of their mitted to the trial the basis of court on stipulations trial court and briefs. The is It that the resolution сoncluded held; opinion part filed an which in against appellants unenforceable the appellants permitted continue shall be to appears
“It that the established to or premises use leased as a rifle Board the of Commissioners have pistol range and to firearms authority the to to exercise protect ap- therein.” inhabitants does not its and it
pear that abused their the commissioners judg- Thereafter the court entered adoption discretion in the this resolu- оf ment holding respondent the be that should tion. allowed to its its leasehold continue use of as
However, pistol range. a rifle the or The defendant- Court takes no- аppellant, cases, of tice of Board Commissioners former Lewiston Nez Imthurn, County, appeals Club from that versus Case No. judgment. and Lewiston versus Im- Pistol Club thurn, by Case No. decided both It has been held that there are by Court and affirmed the general three power limitations upon the Court. In those cases it was determined the County adopt Commissiоners to restric that premises holds certain tions on the use of land: lease, a long January term running from “(1) ordinance regulation or must 1, 1960, 31, 1969, [T]he December to and which be govern- to the confined limits the provides lease by that the lands be ‘used same, mental body enacting it (2) the the lessees for the and main- installation must gener- not be in confliсt with tenance range, or rifle or state, al laws of the must not (3) both.’ grantors The under the lease are arbitrary unreasonable or A. and Elda W. V. Imthurn. The Im- enactment.” thurns attempted to forfeit lease the con- tending, among other things, the The challenge appears to the resolution
pellants maintaining herein were a nui- be based аrgument on the that it is an un- by sance the use of the firearms on arbitrary reasonable It has enactment. leased for the two that, reason been held homes areа, had been built in after the “In determining the of reason- lease, the granting by of the or lots sold ableness or unreasonableness of a munic- the Imthurns. ordinance, ipal existing all the circum- silent as to the reasons conditions, contemporaneous stances or the of County Board objects obtained, sought the to be “Any twenty days time over, after equivalent, sum of or or $300.00 its publication posting the expiration first or of the state be valid until after of the time ment, required by 31-819, ap appeal as section allowed for or until such if peal any pro act, finally taken, determined; be taken from order or hut there ceeding board, by any aggrieved expected oрeration of the all orders hereof thereby, any by taxpayer county payment specially or for the of those direct- sums any against by paid, when payments demand is allowed the coun ed law to be fulfil- or ty act, proceedings or when he deems such order or ment of or made and acts con- proceeding prejudicial public illegal according provisions firmed hereof.” interests; act, proceed order or indirectly whatever, 365, ren 2. State v. 399 P. county payment ders the liable for the 2d necessity opinion, lack thereof for its in that the
adoption will be considered the court. could well be zoning considered a ordi- * * * (Citations omitted) nаnce Whether meaning of I.C. 50-1201 § or not an ordinance is is a seq., reasonable et as applicable made to counties * * * question of law for the court. 31-3801. In procedural that event the (Citations omitted) quirements and the rules of con- enacting zoning ordinances struction of ordinances are same as not complied hаve been with. I. See applied those stat- remand, construction of and 31-3802. On §§ utes, (Citations omitted) this issue should be considered court. I.R.C.P. 54(c). presumption A attains in favor of municipal of a ordinance.” surrounding cir- evidence of the *4 cumstances and conditions considered
the trial court was the in the
proceeding of v. Lewiston Pistol Club
Imthurn.4 Generally a trial court
the resolution unenforceable in this action. judgment court’s must be
versed and remanded for a on prop-
conditions and circumstances of the
erty the ob- connection with
jects of the resolution. appellants. J.,C. BAKES, JJ.,
McFADDEN and : specially) (concurring Justice argued it was neither nor
While briefed and therefore not considered Court, ambit the second come within the v.
restriction
out in the case
State
set
majority
supra, referred to in the
176,
(1971).
City
Falls,
264,
4.
Idaho