# Hooton v. City of Burley

> Idaho Supreme Court · June 23, 1950 · 70 Idaho 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552769

## Case

- **Full name:** HOOTON Et Al. v. CITY OF BURLEY
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 23, 1950
- **Citations:** 70 Idaho 369; 219 P.2d 651
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Taylor
- **Judges:** Keeton, Taylor, Holden, Givens, Porter
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552769

## Opinion text

TAYLOR, Justice.
I concur in the conclusion reached. However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion to the effect that the operating of a street lighting system by a municipality is not a governmental function and that it was so held in Eaton v. City of Weiser, 12 Idaho 544 , 86 P. 541, 542 , 118 Am.St. Rep. 225. The Weiser case 'holds that, “The city was engaged in a private enterprise, namely, that of manufacturing and selling electric light to its inhabitants. Such an engagement or enterprise is not one of the public governmental duties of municipalities.” Nothing is said in that case about a municipal street lighting system owned and operated by the city. And it cannot be determined from the opinion whether the sagging wire which caused the damage was used for street lighting or for the sale of electric energy to the consumers. Hence, that case is authority for the proposition only that the manufacture and sale of electric energy to private consumers by a city is a proprietary function. In this case the record shows that the street lighting system of the defendant was operated by it entirely separate and apart from its business of generating and supplying electricity to consumers. The lighting of the streets is a part of the governmental duty, imposed by statute upon the city, of keeping its streets and alleys in a reasonably safe condition for use by the public in the usual and customary manner. Section 50-1141, I.C.; Carson v. Genesee, 9 Idaho 244 , 74 P. 862 , 108 Am.St.Rep. 127 ; Moreton v. St. Anthony, 9 Idaho 532 , 75 P. 262 ; Powers v. Boise, 22 Idaho 286 , 125 P. 194 ; Baillie v. Wallace, 24 Idaho 706 , 135 P. 850 ; Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway District, 42 Idaho 738 , 248 P. 456 , 49 A.L.R. 1057 .
Obviously, where a street light is necessary to make a street reasonably safe for use at hours when streets are ordinarily used after dark, it would be the duty of the city to provide the light. In doing so, it would be discharging a governmental function. Trueman v. St. Maries, 21 Idaho 632 , 123 P. 508 . In this case, the result is the same whether it be regarded as a governmental or proprietary function. The rule has long been established that the city’s duties with respect to its streets must be discharged by the city at its peril, and that it is liable for damage caused by its neglect of that duty. Authorities above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552769. Public record. Not legal advice.