Opinion ID: 1255514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court properly admitted into evidence a lease between the city and the fbo and a state document on tie-down standards.

Text: The city asserts that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a lease between the city and the FBO and a document containing state standards concerning tie-downs. We disagree. The trial court admitted into evidence, over the city's relevancy objection, a lease between the city and the FBO in which the city agreed to maintain, operate, and keep in good repair the airport and its appurtenances, facilities and services.... The city contends that the lease was irrelevant because the owners could not enforce it as third party beneficiaries. The existence of a contractual duty to maintain the airport cannot be equated with a tort duty to a third party. Yet, in determining whether the city had a duty to the owners, the broader issue of what responsibilities the city assumed with regard to the airport was implicated. Throughout the trial, the city essentially denied responsibility for everything that happened at the airport. Given that stance, the lease was relevant albeit tenuously, and properly admitted by the trial court. The trial court also admitted into evidence a document published by the Idaho transportation department's bureau of aeronautics and public transportation, which detailed state standards (the state standards) for the construction and installation of tie-downs. The city objected on foundational grounds, arguing that there was no evidence the document represented mandatory state regulations. The trial court informed the jury that the state standards on tie-downs were advisory, not mandatory, and it did not give a negligence per se instruction regarding the regulations. The city did not dispute that the document represented standards compiled by the state. Thus, there was a sufficient foundation for admitting the tie-down standards for advisory purposes.