Opinion ID: 2631211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: a & r's demolition work was done in furtherance of the purpose of the act and resolution.

Text: The policies and purposes of the State Disaster Preparedness Act are set forth in I.C. § 46-1003. Among the purposes are to prevent and reduce damage, injury, and loss of life and property resulting from natural or man made catastrophes and to authorize and encourage cooperation in disaster prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery and to provide for coordination of activities relating to disaster prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery by all state agencies . . . . I.C. §§ 46-1003(2),(6) and (7). A & R cites to Marty v. State, 117 Idaho 133, 143, 786 P.2d 524, 534 (1989), in support of the position that the Act is similar to the common law doctrine of public necessity and that the destruction of property in some limited circumstances is justified. Id. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U.S. 149, 73 S.Ct. 200, 97 L.Ed. 157 (1952), the Court noted, [T]he common law ha[s] long recognized that in times of imminent perilsuch as when a fire threatened a whole communitythe sovereign could, with immunity, destroy the property of a few that the property of many and the lives of many more could be saved. Marty, 117 Idaho at 143, 786 P.2d at 544. In Marty, this Court recognized the abrogation of the common law doctrine of public necessity by the passage of the Disaster Preparedness Act. Id. Recovery efforts are clearly contemplated as a purpose behind the Act. A & R was called to the scene of the fire on March 1, 1994, in order to remove portions of masonry walls that were determined to be a threat to public safety because they were adjacent to a public right of way. Fire Chief Tomberg confirmed that the demolition of the walls of the Weisgerber, Beehive, and Beach buildings was necessary as they posed a hazard to the public from the danger of falling or from further spreading of the fire. The demolition of the masonry walls falls within the purposes of the Act. Consequently, the district court decision granting summary judgment on this issue is affirmed.