O'Guin v. Bingham County
122 P.3d 308 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a statute or regulation establishes a specific standard of care intended to protect a class of persons from a certain type of harm, that standard replaces the general common law duty of care, such as the limited duty owed to trespassers, for the purpose of a negligence per se action.
Facts:
- On July 7, 1999, Shaun and Alex O’Guin were playing at the Bingham County landfill.
- A section of a pit wall in the landfill collapsed, crushing and killing the two children.
- On the day of the incident, the landfill was closed, and no employees were on site.
- The children had walked from a nearby school, through an unlocked gate and an empty field, to reach the landfill.
- The border between the field and the landfill was unobstructed, and some of the landfill's boundaries were not fenced or blocked.
- The landfill was only open to the public one day a week and was not open on the day of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank and Leslie O’Guin sued Bingham County in district court (trial court) for the wrongful death of their children.
- The County filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court, after reconsidering its initial ruling, granted summary judgment to the County on all claims.
- The O'Guins appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on the common law negligence and attractive nuisance claims but remanded the negligence per se claim to the district court for consideration.
- On remand, the County renewed its motion for summary judgment on the negligence per se claim.
- The district court granted the County's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the final claim.
- The O'Guins, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the Idaho Supreme Court; the County is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state regulation requiring a landfill owner to control public access to protect human health establish a standard of care that replaces the common law duty owed to a trespasser, which only prohibits willful or wanton conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Trout, J.
Yes. A state regulation requiring a landfill owner to control public access to protect human health establishes a standard of care that replaces the common law duty owed to a trespasser. The doctrine of negligence per se allows a statutory duty to supplant the common law standard of care when a four-part test is met. The court found the regulations clearly defined a standard of conduct (to fence or block access), were intended to prevent the type of harm that occurred (interpreting "protection of human health" to include safety from physical injury), the children were in the protected class ("unauthorized persons"), and causation was a question of fact for the jury. Because the statutory duty applies, it replaces the less stringent common law duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct towards trespassers, and the plaintiffs do not need to prove the County's actions met that higher common law bar.
Dissenting - Eismann, J.
No. The regulations cited by the majority were not intended to prevent the type of harm that occurred and therefore cannot support a claim of negligence per se. The dissent argues that the regulations' purpose was to prevent health hazards from pollution and illegal dumping of waste, not to prevent physical accidents. The term "health" should be interpreted in its ordinary sense of 'freedom from disease,' not expanded to include "safety." The existence of other federal regulations that specifically address "safety" demonstrates that the two concepts are distinct. Therefore, the common law duty to trespassers—to refrain from willful and wanton conduct—should still apply, and the negligence per se claim should fail.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the interaction between statutory duties and common law duties in tort law, particularly concerning landowners and trespassers. It establishes that a specific safety regulation can elevate the duty of care owed even to those with the lowest status on land, effectively carving out a major exception to the traditional trespasser rule. This precedent broadens potential liability for entities governed by specific safety statutes, as they can no longer rely on the minimal common law duty to trespassers if their violation of a regulation causes the type of harm the regulation was designed to prevent. Future cases will likely focus on interpreting the legislative intent behind various safety regulations to determine if they displace common law standards.
Unlock the full brief for O'Guin v. Bingham County