Court Opinion

ID: 9785936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:49:05.320936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:36.297277
License: Public Domain

Justice EISMANN,
Dissenting.
I cannot concur in the majority opinion because the regulations cited therein as supporting a claim of negligence per se were clearly not intended to prevent the type of harm involved in this case.
I agree that the common law rule regarding the liability of a landowner to trespassers can be modified by legislation or an administrative regulation that modifies the applicable standard of care. To base a claim of negligence upon the violation of a statute or regulation, however, the statute or regulation must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant’s act or omission caused. Munns v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 138 Idaho 108, 58 P.3d 92 (2002).
The majority opinion relies upon IDAPA 58.01.06.005.02 and 40 C.F.R. 258.25 as providing the applicable standard of care. Neither of those regulations is intended to prevent trespassers from injuring themselves through an accident at a landfill. They are intended to prevent trespassers from dumping or salvaging materials that may be harmful to health or the environment.
The purpose of the IDAPA rules is stated in IDAPA 58.01.06.004.01 and .02, which provide:
01. Solid Waste Management. All solid waste shall be managed, whether it be during storage, collection, transfer, transport, processing, separation, incineration, composting, treatment, reuse, recycling, or disposal, to prevent health hazards, public nuisances, or pollution of the environment.
02. Requirements. Solid wastes shall be managed such that they shall not:
a. Provide sustenance to rodents or insects which are capable of causing human disease or discomfort.
b. Cause or contribute to the pollution of the air.
c. Cause or contribute to the pollution of surface or underground waters.
d. Cause excessive abuse of land.
e. Cause or contribute to noise pollution.
f. Abuse the natural aesthetic quality of an area.
g. Physically impair the environment to the detriment of man and beneficial plant life, fish, and wildlife.
The regulations are intended to protect against health hazards from pollution and disease. They are not intended to protect against injury from accidents. The same holds for 40 C.F.R. 258.25, which states:
Owners or operators of all MSWLF [municipal solid waste landfill] units must control public access and prevent unauthorized vehicular traffic and illegal dumping of wastes by using artificial barriers, natural barriers, or both, as appropriate to protect human health and the environment.
The concern is illegal dumping of wastes that are dangerous to human health and the environment. The word “health” is not normally construed to include freedom from accidents. Rather, it simply means “freedom from disease or abnormality.”2 The majority can *57reach its conclusion only by redefining the word “health” to include “safety.” Such redefinition is not supported either by Idaho law or by the federal regulations.
Idaho Code § 39-7401(2) states that the legislature’s intent when it adopted the Idaho Solid Waste Facilities Act was “to establish a program of solid waste management which complies with 40 C.F.R. 258.” The purpose of Section 258 is to establish minimum national criteria for all municipal solid waste landfills which will “ensure the protection of human health and the environment.” 40 C.F.R. 258.1(a). Consistent with that purpose, Section 258.25 requires owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfill units to “control public access and prevent unauthorized vehicular traffic and illegal dumping of wastes by using artificial barriers, natural barriers, or both, as appropriate to protect human health and the environment.” 40 C.F.R. 258.25. The regulation only requires barriers to prevent “unauthorized vehicular traffic and illegal dumping of wastes.” The required barriers need not be able to keep out trespassing pedestrians who may accidentally injure themselves at the landfill.
The majority quotes a portion of § 3.7.3 from the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria technical manual for its construction of 40 C.F.R. § 258.25 in order to arrive at the conclusion that Bingham County was required to fence out trespassing pedestrians from its landfill. Reading that entire subsection of the technical manual shows that the majority’s interpretation is wrong. The last paragraph of that subsection states:
Acceptable measures to limit access of unauthorized persons to the disposal facility include gates and fences, trees, hedges, berms, ditches, and embankments. Chain link, barbed wire added to chain link, and open farm-type fencing are examples of fencing that may be used. Access to facilities should be controlled through gates that can be locked when the site is unsupervised. Gates may be the only additional measure needed at remote facilities.
Obviously, barriers consisting of “trees, hedges, berms, ditches, and embankments” or “open farm-type fencing” are not designed to keep out trespassing pedestrians. They are only designed to keep out vehicles that may be transporting waste into the facility when it is closed. The fact that these types of barriers are expressly stated as being acceptable shows that the regulation was not intended to require municipal solid waste disposal facilities to fence out trespassing pedestrians.
The federal regulation dealing with the physical safety, as opposed to the health, of trespassers entering the landfill is 40 C.F.R. 257.3-8(d). That regulation, which is entitled “Safety,” states, “A facility or practice shall not allow uncontrolled public access so as to expose the public to potential health and safety hazards at the disposal site.” If the word “health” included “safety,” as the majority contends, then there would have been no reason to adopt 40 C.F.R. 257.3-8(d). It *58would merely be surplusage. Indeed, if the word health included safety then there would be no reason for 40 C.F.R. 257.3 — 8(d) to expressly mention both health and safety. Although 40 C.F.R. 257 requires prohibiting uncontrolled public access in order to protect against potential “safety hazards at the disposal site,” such regulation does not apply in this ease.3
Finally, the majority notes in footnote 1 of its opinion that years after the accident in this case IDAPA 58.01.06.011-013 was amended to require that landfills comply with 40 C.F.R. 257.1-.3 within two years after April 26, 2002. The majority contends that this amendment supports its position because “Sub-part 8 of that C.F.R. regulation, entitled ‘Safety,’ states in pertinent part, ‘A facility or practice shall not allow uncontrolled public access so as to expose the public to potential health and safety hazards at the disposal site.’ ”
I cannot see how this amendment supports the reasoning of the majority opinion. IDA-PA 58.01.06.004 already required that landfills be managed “to prevent health hazards,” and such management include limiting access to the site to those times when an attendant is on duty. If the word “health” was already intended to include “safety,” then there would have been no need to later amend IDAPA to incorporate the safety requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. 257.3-8. Rather than supporting the majority’s argument, this amendment to IDAPA shows that at the time of the accident in this case, the meaning of the word “health” did not include “safety.” Rather, health should simply be given its usual, plain, and ordinary meaning. Although this was a tragic accident, it is not proper for this Court to retroactively amend the regulations to require municipalities to fence out trespassing pedestrians.

. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.2000), available at *57http:/www.dictionaiy.reference.com/search?= health.htm. Another dictionary defines "health" as follows:
la: the condition of an organism or one of its parts in which it performs its vital functions normally or properly: the state of being sound in body or mind cnursed him back to ~> <he is the picture of —> <dental —> cmental ~> — compare DISEASE b: the condition of an organism with respect to the performance of its vital functions esp. as evaluated subjectively or nonprofessionally <how is your ~ today> cnever in better ~> <her ~ is very delicate> cbroken in ~> <went traveling for his ~>.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Languagel043 (Philip Babcock Gove et al. eds., 1971). Webster’s definition of "health” states that it should be compared with "disease,” which it defines as follows:
b (1): an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or of any of its components that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, being a response to environmental factors <as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate>, to specific infective agents <as worms, bacteria, or viruses, to inherent defects of the organism as various genetic anomalies >, or to a combination of these factors: SICKNESS, ILLNESS (2): a particular instance or kind of such impairment <baby-pig ~> <hampered by her ~>: MALADY, AILMENT — compare HEALTH.
Id. at 648. Black’s Law Dictionary, 724 (7th ed.1999), defines "health” as: "1. The state of being sound or whole in body, mind, or soul. 2. Freedom from pain or sickness."

. The criteria in 40 C.F.R. 257 "do not apply to municipal solid waste landfill units, which are subject to the revised criteria contained in part 258 of this chapter.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.1(a)(10). A "municipal solid waste landfill” is one that receives household waste. 40 C.F.R. § 257.2.