Olguin v. City of Burley, 810 P.2d 255

Olguin v. City of Burley

810 P.2d 255

Idaho

1991

Check Treatment

*1 721 vacating there the undesigned, or un- is the alternative pected, unlooked-for decision, remanding and mishap. event or Commission’s toward we re- The decision which reconsideration. discussing an acci- what constitutes up quality with viewed did not measure dent, Simplot v. Wynn case of the J.R. unlikely previous It is not that decisions. Co., 102, (1983), 666 P.2d 629 105 Idaho crews, pressure changing the to attendant holding long history of cases reaffirmed to added fact the Commis- which is the that that: engulfed has many years sion for now been engaged If in his ordi- the claimant be work- very and burdensome heavy with a nary usual work and strain such load, the Commission’s hec- contributed to sufficient to overcome the labor becomes pace. tic body claimаnt’s and resistance compensa- gainsaid many It are injury, injury an is cannot be our causes vacated so that ble. decisions can we can Commission reconsider. When 104, (citing P.2d 105 at 666 at 631 Idaho Otherwise, so, a deci- do we should do so. Whiрple Brundage, v. 80 approval with stamped “ap- sion of Commission 193, (1958), and Idaho 327 P.2d 383 Lewis proved” by this is the end of line Court 40, Law Dept. Enforcement, v. incapacitated faithful but now for the once (1957)). Dolph’s injury knee 311 P.2d 976 worker. just injury resulting of an such case ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍ordinary from the strain of the usual work

overcoming the claimant’s resistance of the

body. overemphasizing that

There is no compensation law

workers’ must be con- liberally injured

strued in favor of the em- Steinebach, ployee. at 810 P.2d 255 P.2d at 381. It should also remembered be OLGUIN, per incapacitated an Mark A. quo, concept, quid pro that the basic Malaxechevarria, son, conser and Dora underlying the creation thе Worker’s Olguin, A. Plaintiffs- vator for Mark worker, Compensation Act was Appellants, surrendering right his her or to sue v. damages employ- from his her obtain or BURLEY, injured job, er in return and when would CITY John Banks OF Nay, just compensation. assured Robert 72-201; 1 Larsen Defendants-Respondents, 1.10. Judicial inter- § pretation Compensation of the Worker’s and protection Act which erodes the afforded Shears, Webster, Mike J. Barton purpose worker undermines I-X, and Jane Does John of the Act. The workers have been Defendants. stripped right of their redress in seek damages jury or which a district court No. 18374. would award. Commission decisions and Idaho, Supreme Court Supreme patently Court decisions un- are Falls, Term. Twin October just erroneously whenever the worker is arbitrarily promised “sure denied the 5, 1991. March certain relief.” May Rehearing Denied of the Industrial The order Commission and the remand- should be reversed cause

ed, the Commission should be instruct- awarding issue order benefits compensable

this industrial accident. respond, does the least

the Court not so *2 Boise, Boegh,

Churchill & Vander plaintiffs-appellants. Douglas L. Vander Boegh, argued. Smith,

Parsons, Fletcher, Stone & Bur- ley, defendants-respondents. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍William Parsons, argued.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is a tort claims case. issue presented is whether officers who do person they not reason arrest liable may believe is intoxicated be held another who is when the person subsequently drives intoxicated causes an vehicle and accident. hold presented that under the facts on a motion case, in this dismissing trial court was correct in injured person’s against claims the law en- city that em- forcement and the ployed them.

I. THE AND PRIOR BACKGROUND PROCEEDINGS. 22, early morning hours of June Jay sought to Barton Webster file a complaint city-county at the law enforce- building Burley, ment had bouncer at a local bar who struck Nay in the nose. Robert Webster Officers Burley City Police and John Banks area Department dispatch were attempt. Offi- the time Webster made this seek medical Nay cer advised Webster to filing complaint. before Offiсer attention Nay that had been suspected Webster if he drinking and told Webster drive. The drinking, been he should not could officer said that an ambulance did that he not called. Webster stated need left the sta- an ambulance and tion. apparently drove to the then

Webster hospital Burley he was treated for where injury. The who treated a nose doctor concluded that Webster too Webster police. drive and called the intoxicated to dispatched and Banks were arrived at hospital. When the officers Nay and Banks that Officers grounds them that doctor advised hospital, the right to control Webster’s intoxicated to drive and have the was too did not Webster distinguished Ran the officers the Wеb- court keys. The trial delivered The officers advised Web- vehicle. City, ster’s som v. Garden suggested to him that to drive and grounds ster not (1987) on the P.2d 70 *3 up. him pick come and someone he have right to control had the in that Case officer comе he would have someone Webster said result of question in as a the vehicle him The officers returned drive home. and Olguin appeal arrest of the owner. lawful departed him and in re- keys to Webster’s summary judgment. call. sponse to anоther left, Webster Shortly after the officers II. away. and drove Less entered his vehicle A DID HAVE later, THE OFFICERS NOT was than an hour the vehicle Webster in ARREST WEBSTER. driving with an automobile DUTY TO collided Olguin passenger. Mark A. was the officers had Olguin asserts that injury. a serious head received gain control of duty and to arrest Webster mother, acting guardian, as his Olguin’s keys. disagree. his and his vehicle Nay Burley and Officers City sued the summa considering In a motion for Banks, alleging: and com requesting dismissal of a ry judgment influ- driving under the 1. Webster was and governmental entity plaint against a at the time of the acci- ence of alcohol the Idaho Tort Claims employees its under dent. Act, questions three the trial court has keys to returning 2. The of Webster’s answer: by Nay and Banks Webster reсovery sought on the basis of an 1. Is allowing him to drive: and laws alleged that exists under the negligent, grossly negligent, a. was Idaho? willful, knowing, and in reckless dis- so, law, does an 2. If as a matter regard duty of the the officers owed to in exception liability found the Tort Olguin; and alleged miscon- Act shield the Claims accepted police failed to conform to b. liability? duct from standards, practices procedures. and merits exception applies, do the ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍no Nay and 3. The conduсt of Officers presented for consider- of the claim as proximate Banks cause of Ol- was summary judg- motion for ation on the guin’s injuries. moving party to dis- ment entitle the City Burley The and Officers missal? summary judgment, re- Banks moved for County, 112 Idaho v. Shoshone Walker com- questing the trial court to dismiss the (1987). 991, 995, 739 P.2d (1) plaint grounds on the 6-918 Act) (a portion of the Idaho Tort Claims were somewhat The facts Ransom immunity the offi- provided city to the In facts in this case. Ran- similar to the cers, (2) duty the officers had no to arrest injured in an auto- som, persons who were Webster, (3) legal had no by an intoxicated accident caused mobile keys or right to control either Webster’s neg- alleged that a officer had driver denied Initially, the trial court his vehiclе. keys to the the vehicle ligently entrusted city and ground that the the motion on the occurred after the driver. This intoxicated not immune. the officers were of the ve- arrested the owner officer had Be- driving under the influence. hicle for fоr re- city and the officers moved station, the own- leaving for the fore denial of consideration of the trial court’s his apprehension that vehicle expressed er summary judgment. On the motion The officer deter- impounded. would bе reconsideration, granted the trial court pas- had been a mined that a who dismissing com- summary judgment also under the in the vehicle was senger on city and the officers plaint should not drive. At the ate an influence and unreasonable risk harm oth- request, gave the officer ers. owner’s instructing passenger passenger, (citations 207-08, Id. 743 P.2d at 75-76 vehicle, not to drive the but to call friends. omitted). departed The officer then with the owner 49-662(3) provides: I.C. § Later, custody. passenger drove Any peace officer is authorized re-

vehicle and collided with the automobile move or cause to be removed to the persons. occupied by garage place safety nearest or other upon highway vеhicle found when: Ransom, first question (a) A report has been made that the ruling consideration the motion vehicle has been stolen or taken with- yes. answered *4 owner, out the consent of its or applies in The same answer this casе. (b) person persons The or in charge of negligence a tort of in Idaho. There is provide the vehicle are unable to its Negligent nothing entrustment is more removal, custody or or particularized application gen a the than of (c) person driving The or in control of principles concept contained in the eral the an alleged vehicle is arrested for 206-08, negligence. of 113 Idaho at 743 offense for which the officer re- is P.2d at 74-76. quired by person to take the law ar- Ransom, question In the second was an- magistrate proper rested a before 206, 743 swered no. Id. at P.2d at 74. The unnecessary delay. without applies in this same answer case. Acknowledging that Officers The distinction between аnd this Ransom Webster, Banks had Olguin not arrested answering in the question. arises third case argues a duty the officers had to Ransom, city argued In the that the gain arrest Webster and to control of his negligent not the offi- officer was because keys vеhicle the to the vehicle. control in cer did not own or the vehicle support in of advances three statutes this question. rejecting argument, this this argument: Court held: peace may A make an officer arrest The officer seized control of the vehicle him, delivered to obedience to a warrant its he arrested driver and retained when warrant, may, a per- or a arrest without keys____ possessed statutory the [H]e son: dispose authority to of the vehicle. public 1. For offense or a committed passenger request- driver or the the had attempted presence. in his keys, the officer was to not bound 19-603(1). I.C. § bailee____ comply. He was not a When policemen every city, of should arrеsted, was the officer ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍owner] [the power appointed, be shall have to person only who had control over arrest all offenders law of legal vehicle. It is the [the owner’s] day state, city, by by or of the right the thing to “control” еntrusted night, in manner as the sheriff the same gives duty negligent to the which rise or constable..... cases, “con- right entrustment and this to I.C. 50-209. § is not limited to hold trol” those who peace duty It shall officers be Here, the had a absolute title. officer to enforce within the of Idaho State right by to “control” the vehicle virtue of the pro- make for the violation arrests 49-692(3) 49-662(3)]. I.C. I.C. § [now § visions of Idaho without Code] [Title a necessity procuring warrant..... right person has a to control Where 49-205(3). I.C. § vehicle, ordinary exercise care he must imposes a None of these statutes permit to it in cir- and not another use person arrest a duty on a officer to he should where knows or cumstances intoxicated, possesses is who may suсh cre- who foreseeably know that use drive, make decision the exclusion might and who such a vehicle right by jury. trial some other crime for committed has not person. might arrest the the officer 19-603(1) merely and 50-209 em- I.C. §§ They arrest. do not an officer to

power arrest. the officer I.C.

require 49-205(3) require might peace read to

§ to arrest those who violated

officers provisions Title Code. assuming proba- the officers 810 P.2d Even driving Webster for ble cause arrest McDONALD, Frances influence, hospital while under Plaintiff-Appellant decide, driving not the crime of issue we do v. by influence is not covered under the 49-205(3), since this crime found Robertson, PAINE, Parry Daly Robert C. 18, Idaho Code. We have been direct- Title Larson, partnership, I & and Does provisions no violation of the of Title ed to V, fictitiously named, through Defen could have arrest- for which dants-Respondents. *5 ed Webster. 18950. No. and Banks did not Since Idaho, power Supreme control Webster’s vehicle Court Boise, keys, January did not breach 1991 Term. and his by returning duty they April keys to him. Webster’s III.

CONCLUSION. summary judgment

We affirm of the

trial court. City Burley award costs to the appeal.

the officers C.J.,

BAKES, and BOYLE

McDEYITT, JJ., concur.

BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. in this

The facts case cannot be satisfac distinguished

torily from the facts in Ran 202, 743 City, v. Garden

som (1987). Ransom, properly ap if

P.2d 70 control the outcome in this

plied, would Hence,

case. reversed, remand and the cause

should jury trial at which would decide

ed for a arbitrarily, officer can but

whether impunity, for immunity and

with absolute uphold the law obligation

sake his sworn here,

when, happened presented as he is he convincing

with clear evidence outright men loosing upon ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍public Nothing in re provides the law

ace. judges empowered are

quires that alone