# Harris v. State, Dept. of Health

> Idaho Supreme Court · December 31, 1992 · 123 Idaho 295

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863800

## Case

- **Full name:** Ester HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE, and John Does I Through IV, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1992
- **Citations:** 123 Idaho 295; 847 P.2d 1156; 1992 Ida. LEXIS 189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** McDevitt, Bistline, Johnson, Bakes, Trout
- **Cited by:** 79 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/9863800

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the statute reflects a “deliberate policy choice” to overrule Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755 (1986), 2 and was based on a legislative finding that the courts had extended liability too far in the other direction
- holding department immune from liability-pursuant to I.C. § 6-904A(2) for injuries caused by a juvenile who committed a burglary and sexual assault while under department supervision
- acknowledging constitutional authority of Legislature to reassert sovereign immunity eroded by courts

## Opinion text

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 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863800. Public record. Not legal advice.