Court Opinion

ID: 9546880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:37:05.527698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:58.850240
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(concurring in part) :
I concur with the opinion of Justice EL-LETT affirming a summary judgment by the court below decreeing certain priorities in the use of water to the plaintiff, but I am unable to agree with the opinion wherein it would reverse the summary judgment of the court as to the right of the plaintiff to recover damages. I am in agreement that the nonprofit corporation act referred to in the opinion confers upon the plaintiff the right to sue and to be sued in its corporate name, however, I do not believe that the statute confers upon the plaintiff the right to recover damages sustained by its shareholders. The plaintiff does not claim that it has been damaged by any act of the defendant and it is quite clear that the plaintiff has suffered no damage to its property nor a loss of revenue. If anyone has suffered damage by reason of the defendant’s unlawful diversion of water from the plaintiff, it is the water users or shareholders of the plaintiff corporation and they are entitled to sue to recover for their losses. The measure of the damage suffered by an individual user would be the damage to crops.1 I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has no right at law to sue to recover damages suffered by its shareholders as a trustee or otherwise.2
I would affirm the lower court in granting a summary judgment upon that part of the case.

. Bigler v. Fryer, 82 Utah 380, 25 P.2d 598.

. Nevada Ditch Co. v. Pacific Livestock Co., 63 Or. 363, 127 P. 984; Eaton v. Larimer & Weld Reservoir Co., 3 Colo. App. 366, 33 P. 278.