Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the court evaluated whether claims of negligence and negligence per se brought by property owners against Pima County were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-541(3). The property owners alleged that Pima County was negligent in approving a permit to Edison Realty Associates for bank protection construction, which purportedly led to flood damage in 1983. The lawsuit, filed in 1985, was deemed untimely as it exceeded the statutory period. The court affirmed that Pima County's duty was derived from statutory ordinances governing floodplain management rather than common law, thereby subjecting the claims to the specified one-year limitation. Additionally, the court dismissed the property owners' argument concerning a disclaimer of liability in the ordinance, indicating that it was a separate issue to be addressed in future claims. The court concluded that the relationship between the county and the property owners is statutorily defined, affirming the lower court's decision and applying A.R.S. 12-541(3) to the claims. Judges Roll and Fernandez concurred in the judgment, solidifying the statutory framework's primacy in such governmental duty cases.
Legal Issues Addressed
Addressing Disclaimer of Liability in Ordinancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deferred consideration of the disclaimer of liability issue, noting it is separate from the statute of limitations discussion and will be addressed in future proceedings.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court dismisses the Jacksons’ argument regarding a disclaimer of liability in the ordinance, stating that this issue is separate from the statute of limitations question and will be addressed in future claims.
Application of Statute of Limitations under A.R.S. 12-541(3)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the one-year statute of limitations to bar claims of negligence and negligence per se against Pima County by the Jacksons because their lawsuit was filed more than one year after the damage occurred.
Reasoning: The appeal concerns whether the trial court correctly applied the one-year statute of limitations, A.R.S. 12-541(3), to bar claims of negligence and negligence per se brought by Gail S. Jackson, Max J. Gottschalk, and Fred Frye (Jacksons) against Pima County.
Creation of Tort Actions by Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the floodplain statute did not create an independent tort action against the county, affirming that claims must be based on statutory duties.
Reasoning: The Jacksons claim that the floodplain statute did not create an independent tort action and assert that any duty owed by the county is indistinguishable from common law duty.
Governmental Duty and Statutory Responsibilitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that any duty Pima County owed to the Jacksons arose from statutory requirements, and not from common law, due to the specific ordinances governing floodplain management.
Reasoning: The court notes that the Pima County ordinance specifies the duty to issue permits and enforce provisions, establishing that any duty owed to the Jacksons was created by these statutes and ordinances, not common law.
Negligence Claims Against Government Officialssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims of negligence against Pima County related to statutory duties must adhere to the specific statutory limitations period, confirming the applicability of A.R.S. 12-541(3).
Reasoning: The court cites multiple cases confirming that A.R.S. 12-541(3) applies to claims against government officials for actions taken under statutory duties.