Court Opinion

ID: 9863800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:54:05.75696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:19.614697
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in parts II and III of the Court’s opinion, but respectfully dissent from part I.
In my view, Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 115 Idaho 266, 766 P.2d 736 (1988), and G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514, 808 P.2d 851 (1991), dictate that we vacate the trial court’s summary judgment. As I read the record, applying the standards in Jacobsen and G & M Farms, we should hold that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the Department was reckless, willful, and wanton in its supervision of Barajas. I believe the Court’s opinion incorrectly requires that Harris meet an elevated standard of proof to avoid summary judgment.
In my view, in construing the evidence in the record most favorably to Harris, and giving Harris the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, there is evidence to support each element of the prima facie case necessary for the theory of reckless, willful, and wanton conduct. Cf. G &M Farms, 119 Idaho at 526, 808 P.2d at 526; Jacobsen, 115 Idaho at 272, 766 P.2d at 742.