Court Opinion

ID: 9739126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:09:15.324289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.179282
License: Public Domain

BARTEAU, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result because I do not agree with the majority's reasoning in resolving Issue III, although I reach the same result. The import of the majority opinion is that the DNR permit is of no significance. I hesitate to say that a valid permit is of no significance in a cause of action such as this. However, in this particular case, Melntyre performed work on the creek outside the scope of the DNR permit. For this reason, I believe McIntyre cannot use the DNR permit as a shield from liability.
The DNR permit allowed Meclntyre to clear debris from the creek and bank, but specifically prohibited Melntyre from performing inchannel excavation work. The trial court found that Mclntyre had diverted and altered the creek, much more than just clearing debris. Because the findings of the trial court support the conclusion that McIntyre exceeded the scope of the DNR permit, the DNR permit cannot shield Mclntyre from liability. I would reserve for another case, however, the affect of a valid permit where the work did not exceed the scope of the permit.