Cope v. Utah Valley State College
290 P.3d 314
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Cope, UVSC Ballroom Dance Tour Team member, sued UVSC after injuring herself during a lift practice on Sept 21, 2005.
- Injury occurred during a rehearsal supervised by Instructor who corrected timing and technique for the lift.
- Instructor warned that the lift could be cut from the routine if not performed correctly; Cope and Partner attempted a left-shoulder lift and fell.
- A video from the week before showed Cope and Partner practicing the lift incorrectly (over the right shoulder) prior to the incident.
- UVSC argued there was no special relationship giving rise to a duty; trial court initially denied summary judgment, then granted renewed motion after video evidence.
- The trial court concluded Cope could have avoided injury by not attempting the difficult lift once warned, denying UVSC’s duty of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly reconsidered summary judgment | Cope argues Rule 60(b) governs reconsideration of final orders, not final denial. | UVSC contends the motion was a Rule 54(b) reconsideration of a non-final order; court wide discretion. | Correct: trial court did not abuse its discretion; reconsideration proper under Rule 54(b). |
| Whether a special relationship exists between Cope and Instructor creating a duty of care | Cope asserts instructor-created special relationship by directing the lift within the academic enterprise. | UVSC contends no special relationship existed; facts insufficient to show duty. | Court held there is a special relationship, imposing a duty of reasonable care on Instructor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. University of Utah, 125 P.3d 906 (Utah 2005) (special relationship arises when governmental actor alters academic environment and victim reasonably relies)
- Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413 (Utah 1986) (special relationship generally from instructor supervision; field trip context)
- Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231 (Utah 1993) (special relationships may extend to members of distinct groups)
- Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (duty determined on a categorical basis for a class of tort claims; broad applicability)
- Cruz v. Middlekauff Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 909 P.2d 1252 (Utah 1996) (duty analysis may depend on special circumstances; factual issues may preclude dismissal)
- Rollins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156 (Utah 1991) (special relationship analysis cited in duty determinations)
- Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 (Utah 1989) (duty questions identified as a matter of law to be determined categorically)
- Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442 (Utah 1993) (duty standard and whether heightened care applies in negligence context)