Faucheaux v. Provo City, 2015 UT App 3

Helen Faucheaux had a documented history of prescription-drug abuse and prior suicide attempts; Kevin (her husband) observed signs of acute intoxication and crushing/snorting of pills and called 911 expressing concern that she might have overdosed or be suicidal.
Provo police responded, spoke with Helen (who denied overdose/suicidality), observed conflicting indicators (Kevin reported crushed powder in the bathroom), and—according to Kevin—tucked Helen into bed, told Kevin to leave her alone, and refused his requests to summon EMTs or take her to the hospital.
Kevin later found Helen dead a few hours after the police left; he sued Provo City as personal representative of Helen’s estate for negligence/wrongful death.
The district court granted summary judgment for Provo, ruling no duty existed and, alternatively, that officers’ actions were protected as discretionary under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding disputed facts could support that officers undertook affirmative acts creating a special relationship and that their conduct was operational (not discretionary) conduct for immunity purposes.

Issue	Faucheaux’s Argument	Provo’s Argument	Held
Whether police owed Helen a duty of care (public-duty doctrine)	Officers formed a special relationship by entering the home, assessing Helen, tucking her into bed, and directing Kevin to leave her alone, creating a specific duty to act reasonably	Public-duty doctrine bars liability for police responding to welfare checks; no special duty to protect someone from self-harm	Reversed: public-duty does not bar the claim; alleged affirmative acts can overcome the doctrine and a special relationship may exist under plaintiff’s version of facts
Whether officers’ conduct was discretionary under the Governmental Immunity Act	Officers’ actions were operational (routine decisions like evaluating condition, declining to call EMTs) and thus nondiscretionary; immunity does not apply	Statutes grant officers discretion (e.g., to take someone into protective custody), so their choices are discretionary and immune	Reversed: alleged acts were operational and do not fall within the Act’s discretionary-function exception

Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (summary judgment review and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Hunsaker v. State, 870 P.2d 893 (Utah 1993) (four elements of negligence)
Nelson v. Salt Lake City, 919 P.2d 568 (Utah 1996) (summary judgment in negligence cases appropriate only in clearest instances)
Francis v. State, 321 P.3d 1089 (Utah 2013) (special-relationship doctrine where government undertakes specific protective action)
Day v. State, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999) (circumstances creating special relationships)
Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995) (discretionary-function analysis—policy vs. operational decisions)
Trujillo v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 986 P.2d 752 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (discretionary-function exception should not swallow waiver; operational acts excluded)
Little v. Utah Div. of Family Servs., 667 P.2d 49 (Utah 1983) (preserving separation of functions among government branches in immunity analysis)