Opinion ID: 2614600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: William's Negligence.

Text: The district judge concluded that Williams was driving his snowmachine in violation of I.C. §§ 67-7110(1) and (3). The judge stated that: Mr. Williams, an expert snowmobiler, fully expected to meet oncoming snowmachines at every corner, knew the white elephant corner was sharp and bad but still he approached the corner at a speed in excess of that which allowed him to safely pass oncoming novice riders. Sawtelle and Williams complain that this finding is unsupported. To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. Orthman v. Idaho Power Co., 126 Idaho 960, 962, 895 P.2d 561, 563 (1995). The question of breach of a duty, as disputed here by Sawtelle and Williams, requires factual findings which this Court will not disturb if supported by substantial and competent evidence. See Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 851, 908 P.2d 143, 153 (1995). There is no dispute that Williams, when operating his snowmachine, had a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm to others. Sharp v. W.H. Moore Inc., 118 Idaho 297, 300, 796 P.2d 506, 509 (1990); see also I.C. § 67-7110. There is also no dispute that Williams' collision with the Hanks was a proximate cause of Diane's injuries. The only remaining issue is whether Williams was exercising reasonable care. If not, Williams' negligence is properly imputed to Sawtelle, his employer. See, e.g., Bettinger v. Idaho Auto Auction, Inc., 128 Idaho 327, 330, 912 P.2d 695, 698 (Ct.App.1996). Sawtelle and Williams assert that the Hanks presented insufficient evidence to conclude that Williams violated I.C. § 67-7110. Instead, they contend the evidence is uncontroverted that Williams approached the curve in a safe and reasonable manner. However, Tom Leman, an accident reconstruction expert, testified that Williams' speed exceeded the critical speed of the curve. Clifford testified that Williams was traveling at a high rate of speed and slid into the Hanks' lane. Williams himself testified that he was traveling at thirty-five to forty miles per hour and that before the accident he was letting it all hang out and going for it and having a ball. The above testimony sufficiently supports the district judge's finding that Williams breached his duty to exercise reasonable care and, thus, negligence was properly attributed to Sawtelle and Williams.