Opinion ID: 2621938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Investigation of nuisance property involves an element of judgment or choice.

Text: As set forth in Martinez, we will first examine whether the County's actions in abating Ransdell's property involved an `element of judgment or choice.' [14] We begin our analysis by examining a factually similar case, in which the Iowa Supreme Court adopted and applied the Berkovitz-Gaubert test to the City of Le Claire's decision to abate a nuisance property. [15] In Goodman v. City of Le Claire , the plaintiff Gary A. Goodman was the proposed developer of a new subdivision in Le Claire, Iowa. [16] During construction, the contractor uncovered on the proposed site an area containing tires, broken concrete, pipe, car parts, bed springs, broken glass, water heaters, and household garbage. [17] The city determined that the debris and dirt on Goodman's property constituted an abandoned landfill and, therefore, a removable nuisance. Goodman instituted a negligence action against the city after the city removed the dirt and debris and billed Goodman for the cost of the abatement. [18] Although the city twice moved to dismiss the action based on Iowa's discretionary-act immunity statute, the trial court denied the city's motions. [19] Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Goodman and the city appealed. [20] In analyzing the city's appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court adopted and applied the Berkovitz-Gaubert test to determine whether Iowa's discretionary-function statute applied. [21] As for the Berkovitz-Gaubert test's first criterion, the Court in Goodman concluded that the city administrator's actions were discretionary because he exercised judgment in deciding whether to label the debris an abandoned landfill, thus potentially subjecting the city to liability to Goodman or to leave the landfill and possibly violate environmental laws. [22] Thus, the Iowa court determined that the city administrator's actions met the first part of the Berkovitz-Gaubert test because the issue of whether the debris was a landfill or merely extraneous junk was a product of the city administrator's judgment. [23] In reaching its decision, the Goodman court pointed out that the law did not provide specific criteria for determining whether an area was a dump at one time and that the city therefore had considerable discretion in making that determination. [24] Here, Clark County Code Section 11.06.010(c) defines debris, rubbish, and refuse as that which is, visible to the public and is offensive to the senses, or is dangerous to the health, safety or welfare of the public. Moreover, NRS 244.3605 authorizes Nevada counties to abate property when a dangerous condition exists. Dangerous condition is defined as, among other things, that which may cause injury to or endanger the health, life, property, or safety of the general public. [25] Thus, as in Goodman, the actions of the Clark County inspectors in this case were discretionary because the abatement procedure required the inspectors to use their own judgment and conduct individual assessments of the conditions on Ransdell's property to determine if abatement was required under the Clark County Code. The inspectors had to determine the nature of various items on Ransdell's property, whether Ransdell was operating a salvage yard or junkyard on his residential property, and if the debris amounted to a dangerous condition, posing a public health or welfare risk in violation of the County Code. Accordingly, because the County's actions involved individual judgment and deliberation, they meet the first criterion of the Berkovitz-Gaubert test, as adopted in Martinez v. Maruszczak . Therefore, we must next determine whether the County's judgment here is `of the kind that the discretionary-function exception was designed to shield.' [26]