Utah Supreme Court
What standard applies to flooding claims against dam operators? Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency Explained
Summary
Jensen sued IPA for flooding damage from the Sevier Bridge Reservoir in 1983 and 1984, claiming negligence and seeking water rights. The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing water rights claims and a jury found no negligence regarding the flooding.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the appropriate liability standard for flooding claims against dam operators, ultimately affirming that a negligence standard governs such claims in most circumstances.
Background and Facts
L. Carl Jensen owned property near the Sevier Bridge Reservoir, with some parcels straddling the reservoir’s 80-foot contour and others lying completely below it. In 1983 and 1984, unprecedented runoff caused flooding that damaged Jensen’s fences, corrals, roads, and stock operation. Jensen sued Intermountain Power Agency and related irrigation companies, claiming they negligently failed to prepare for the excessive runoff and seeking over twelve million dollars in damages.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether strict liability or negligence applied to flooding claims against dam operators. Jensen argued that Gossner v. Utah Power & Light established strict liability for dam-related flooding. The court also addressed appellate jurisdiction requirements and evidentiary rulings regarding statistical evidence and videotape testimony.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished Gossner, explaining that strict liability applies only when defendants cause flooding by releasing water while knowing the dam had reduced the river’s natural flow capacity through sediment deposits. For other flooding circumstances related to dam operation, negligence remains the appropriate standard. The court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review water rights claims because Jensen’s notice of appeal failed to properly designate the partial summary judgment under Rule 3(d).
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that negligence governs most flooding claims against dam operators, with strict liability reserved for narrow circumstances involving changes to natural flow capacity. Practitioners must carefully draft notices of appeal to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, as Rule 3(d) mandates specific designation of all judgments being challenged. The court’s analysis of evidentiary rulings also demonstrates the broad discretion trial courts possess in admitting relevant evidence under Rule 403.
Case Details
Case Name
Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency
Citation
1999 UT 10
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 950464
Date Decided
February 2, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A negligence standard, rather than strict liability, applies to flooding claims against dam operators unless the defendant caused flooding by releasing water when it knew the dam had reduced the river’s natural flow capacity.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law; abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings
Practice Tip
When appealing partial summary judgments, ensure the notice of appeal specifically designates all judgments being challenged, as the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 3(d) are strictly enforced.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.