Property owner brought action against fire district, asserting a negligence claim related to destruction of a sawmill from a fire.
The Fifth Judicial District Court granted in part and denied in part fire district’s motion for summary judgment. Owner appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Court reviewing summary judgment motion concerning a claim arising under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) is free to consider issues related to duty and immunity under ITCA in the order of its choosing, abrogating Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 739 P.2d 290;
- Fire protection district statute did not impose affirmative duty on fire district in favor of owner;
- Courts conducting special relationship inquiry must first consider whether the hallmarks of a special relationship—custody and control—are present before considering whether the relevant factors justify imposing an affirmative duty in that circumstance;
- No special relationship existed to impose affirmative duty of care on fire district;
- Fire district did not assume a duty of care; and
- Fire district would not be awarded attorney fees.