Cope v. Utah Valley State College
342 P.3d 243
| Utah | 2014Background
- Shawnna Cope, a UVSC student and member of the college-sponsored ballroom dance team (for which she received course credit), was injured during a partner lift rehearsal when her partner fell and her head struck his knee.
- No spotters were requested or provided for the lift; the instructor encouraged the couple to attempt a more difficult lift and warned it would be cut if they could not perform it.
- Cope sued Utah Valley State College (UVSC) for negligence and respondeat superior, alleging the college and instructor negligently caused her injury; UVSC moved for summary judgment arguing no duty existed under the public duty doctrine and Webb v. University of Utah.
- The district court granted summary judgment for UVSC invoking the public duty doctrine and lack of a special relationship; the court of appeals reversed, finding a special relationship existed.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, requested supplemental briefing on the public duty doctrine (retention, scope as to acts vs omissions, and applicability to public-entity duties to groups), and heard argument.
- The Supreme Court (Durham) held: (1) Utah retains the public duty doctrine; (2) the doctrine applies only to omissions, not affirmative acts; (3) it applies to duties owed to the general public (which can include populations like a college body); and (4) UVSC’s creation/supervision of the dance team constituted affirmative conduct that gave rise to a duty to student participants, so the doctrine did not bar Cope’s suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Utah retain the public duty doctrine? | Cope implicitly argued doctrine should not bar her claim; retention not disputed by plaintiff. | UVSC relied on the doctrine to negate duty. | Court retained the public duty doctrine as part of Utah common law. |
| Does the public duty doctrine apply to affirmative acts or only omissions? | Cope argued UVSC’s affirmative direction/creation of team makes doctrine inapplicable. | UVSC relied on Webb extension to acts to bar liability. | Doctrine is limited to omissions; Webb was overruled in part—does not apply to affirmative misconduct. |
| Is the doctrine limited to duties owed to the public at large or also to narrower groups (e.g., students)? | Cope argued dance instruction is not a public duty to the college population. | UVSC argued duties to the college body are public duties and thus non‑enforceable absent special relationship. | Public duties are obligations to the general public or a public constituency; duties to a college population can be public, but dance instruction here was not such a public duty. |
| Did UVSC owe Cope an individual duty of care barred by the public duty doctrine? | Cope: UVSC’s creation/supervision of the team and instructor’s directions constituted affirmative conduct creating a duty to participants. | UVSC: No special relationship; claim is effectively a failure to provide spotters (an omission) and thus barred. | Court held UVSC’s affirmative creation/supervision of the team launched an instrument of potential harm and thus assumed a duty to act reasonably; the public duty doctrine did not bar Cope’s negligence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. University of Utah, 125 P.3d 906 (Utah 2005) (addressed public duty doctrine and special‑relationship analysis; partially overruled as to affirmative acts)
- Day v. State, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999) (discussed public duty doctrine; cited for historical treatment of duty questions)
- Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442 (Utah 1993) (describes that a duty owed to the public generally is not enforceable absent a special relationship)
- Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848 (Utah 1994) (applied public duty doctrine to government response to natural disaster and inadequate efforts)
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (framework distinguishing omissions and affirmative acts and duty analysis)
- South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 396 (U.S. 1855) (early Supreme Court decision establishing that public officers are not liable for failure to perform general public duties)