Court Opinion

ID: 9539873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:16.826799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:26.593993
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Having concurred in Parts I and II of Justice Huntley’s opinion, I am unable to do so in Part III. My reasons are easily stated.
First, calendar dates are important. Mr. Roberts died by smoke inhalation on August 22,1984• Less than four months later GAB on behalf of Ranger Insurance Co. (Flemings’ liability carrier) wrote the City of Buhl under date of December 20, 1984, stating in part:
Children and Heirs of Walter L. Roberts have made claim against T & G Flemming dba the Sport Shop Cafe for damages, funeral expenses and wrongful death of Walter L. Roberts totaling $152,000.00 as a result of the fire on 8-22-84.
They are alleging safety defects and code violations. From the facts before us, it appears the City would be responsible and we are therefore placing you on notice of this pending claim.
(Emphasis added.) This was considerably in advance of the 180 day filing requirement mentioned in Justice Huntley’s opinion.
Second, there are certain statutory provisions in the Idaho Tort Claims Act to which Justice Huntley, Justice Johnson, and Chief Justice Bakes pay no mind. Idaho Code § 6-903(e) provides:
(e) For the purposes of this act and not otherwise, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that any act or omission of an employee within the time and at the place of his employment is within the course and scope of his employment and without malice or criminal intent.
Idaho Code § 6 — 903(f) provides in pertinent part:
The fact that a governmental entity may relieve an employee from all necessary legal fees and expenses and any judgment arising from the civil lawsuit shall not under any circumstances be communicated to the trier of fact in the civil lawsuit.
These two germane sections of I.C. § 6-903 are set forth first because of their order of importance. The first section, I.C. § 6-903(a) provides in pertinent part:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this act, every governmental entity is subject to liability for money damages arising out of its negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions and those of its employees acting within the course *535and scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function, where the governmental entity if a private person or entity would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state of Idaho.
In addition to subjecting the entity to such vicarious liability, the ensuing section I.C. § 6-903(b) requires the entity to furnish a defense to an employee who is the sole defendant, and makes the entity responsible for the payment of the judgment recovered against its employee. Idaho Code § 6-903(b) provides in pertinent part:

(b) A governmental entity shall provide a defense to its employee and be responsible for the payment of any judgment on any claim or civil lawsuit against an employee for money damages arising out of any act or omission within the course and scope of his employment ...

Conversely, and obviously not needed, the next section covers the circumstance where the employee’s act or omission does not arise out of employment with the entity. Idaho Code § 6-903(c) provides:
(c) The defense of its employee by the governmental entity shall be undertaken whether the claim and civil lawsuit is brought in Idaho district court under Idaho law or is brought in a United States court under federal law. The governmental entity may refuse a defense or disavow and refuse to pay any judgment for its employee if it is determined that the act or omission of the employee was not within the course and scope of his employment or included malice or criminal intent.
Idaho Code § 6-903(d) simply gives the entity the right to seek contribution or indemnity against an employee whose acts or omissions are beyond the scope and course of his employment.
With the addition of those statutory provisions, only one question need be asked in order to arrive at a proper resolution in Part III, namely, was there any finding, or suggestion, or even a bare scintilla of any evidence that Chief Grimes in performing his functions of City of Buhl Fire Inspector was omitting or acting in any way which was not on behalf of his employer? The answer should need not be stated, but is a resounding: No, none whatever.