Background
Chelsea Brittney Infanger died when her Cessna struck exhaust stacks at Gem State Processing near the approach to Runway 20 at Burley Municipal Airport. The stacks had been identified as a possible collision hazard, and the airport had deactivated its visual approach slope indicator because the stacks and silos penetrated its obstacle-clearance surface. During a 2020 airport safety-data inspection performed by Idaho’s Division of Aeronautics for the FAA, the inspector recorded the stacks as 70 feet high, though they were likely more than 100 feet high.
Infanger’s parents and estate sued several public and private entities. They settled with all defendants except the Division. They alleged the Division negligently failed to regulate the stacks under Idaho’s Airport Zoning Act and negligently performed its FAA-related inspection duties. The district court granted the Division summary judgment, concluding it owed Infanger no actionable duty.
The Court’s Holding
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. It held that, under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, a negligence-per-se claim against a government entity must first satisfy the public-duty rule: the statute must impose mandatory acts intended to protect a particular class, rather than the public generally. The Airport Zoning Act did not do so. Its enforcement provision was discretionary, and its safety purposes benefited the general public rather than a defined class of individual aviators.
The Court also rejected the remaining theories. The alleged failure to regulate was nonfeasance, not affirmative conduct creating a common-law duty. The plaintiffs did not preserve a theory that the Division had a special-relationship duty to control Gem State, and no duty to protect existed because the Division lacked custody and control over Infanger. An assumed-duty theory based on the Division’s FAA inspection contract was likewise not preserved below. The Court declined appellate attorney fees for the Division because the claims had reasonable factual and legal bases.
Key Takeaways
- A statutory negligence-per-se claim against an Idaho government entity requires a threshold showing that the statute mandates protection for a particular class, not the public at large.
- The Court reduced the Rees public-duty analysis to that statutory particularized-duty inquiry and overruled Rees to the extent it conflicts.
- Alleged regulatory inaction does not establish a common-law duty without an applicable exception, such as a properly established special relationship or affirmative conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision narrows the path for tort claims based on a state agency’s failure to enforce or carry out safety regulations. Plaintiffs must identify a statute that creates a mandatory, individualized duty; generalized public-safety legislation is insufficient.
It also underscores that parties must clearly present their duty theories in the trial court. Appellate arguments framed as duty-to-control or assumed-duty claims will not be considered if they were not preserved.