Colosimo v. Gateway Community Church, 382 P.3d 667

In June 2012, 16-year-old A.C. and two cousins climbed a locked ladder onto the roof of a building owned by Gateway Community Church without permission; A.C. contacted electrified metal flashing, suffered fatal electrocution, and died days later.
Gateway occupied/purchased the building in 1999/2003; at some point in 2003–2004 an acrylic faceplate with a new logo was installed in an existing exterior sign attached to the building.
Post-accident inspections (by the Colosimos’ electrical engineer and by Gateway with various assistants and officials) revealed defective wiring: indoor wiring/conduit used outdoors, lack of grounding, and output wires contacting metal frame flashing.
Draper City sign ordinances required sign permits, safe installation and maintenance in compliance with building/electrical codes, and provided that ordinance violations could be criminal; ordinances also stated they should not be construed to limit sign owners’ liability.
The Colosimos (A.C.’s parents/heirs) sued Gateway for wrongful death/negligence; Gateway moved for summary judgment asserting no duty to the trespassing child. The district court granted summary judgment for Gateway and partially struck portions of the Colosimos’ expert declaration; the Colosimos appealed.

Issue	Colosimo's Argument	Gateway's Argument	Held
Whether Gateway owed a common-law duty to a trespasser	Two prior roof entries (2004, 2010) put Gateway on notice of likely trespassers and fit Restatement exceptions (sections 334–339) imposing duty	General rule: landowners owe no duty to trespassers; two isolated incidents over many years do not establish habitual trespass or trigger exceptions	Gateway owed no common-law duty; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Draper City Sign Ordinances imposed a duty to trespassers independent of common law	Ordinance violation creates negligence and should impose duty even to a trespasser	Ordinance does not explicitly abrogate common-law nonliability to trespassers; statutes/ordinances imposing new burdens are strictly construed and leave common-law defenses intact	Ordinances do not impose duty to trespassers here; Gateway owed no statutory/ordinance-based duty
Whether district court erred in evidentiary rulings (motions to strike)	Pastor’s and mechanic’s testimony lacked personal knowledge; expert’s statements that Gateway had "notice" were factual/opinion, not legal conclusions	Pastor/mechanic testimony was immaterial to the court’s ruling; expert’s conclusory legal statements should be struck	Denial of Colosimos’ motion to strike was not harmful (testimony was immaterial); court properly struck expert’s paragraphs concluding Gateway had "notice" as impermissible legal conclusions

Whipple v. Am. Fork Irrigation Co., 910 P.2d 1218 (Utah 1996) (states general rule that land possessor is not liable to trespassers for failure to exercise reasonable care)
Lopez v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 932 P.2d 601 (Utah 1997) (habitual trespass evidence can impose duty; factual pattern requires proof of recurring practice, not isolated incidents)
Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848 (Utah 1981) (violation of safety ordinance is prima facie evidence of negligence)
Tallman v. City of Hurricane, 985 P.2d 892 (Utah 1999) (without a legally cognizable duty, negligence fails as a matter of law)
Daley v. Salt Lake & U.R. Co., 247 P. 293 (Utah 1926) (estate of trespasser barred from recovery despite defendant’s violation of city ordinance)