484 P.3d 1134
Utah2021Background
- Liudmila Feldman drowned in a creek at Parley’s Historic Nature Park (Salt Lake City) after entering the water to retrieve dogs; complaint alleges a dangerous current caused by manmade developments at an East Creek Access.
- Feldmans (husband and adult children, individually and as estate reps) sued the City for negligence, premises liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability, and wrongful death.
- City moved to dismiss under Utah’s Limitations on Landowner Liability Act §57-14-401, which bars claims for personal injury caused by inherent risks of recreational activities on land open to the public without charge.
- District court dismissed, holding §401 bars wrongful death claims, the dangerous current was an inherent risk of entering a creek, and amendment alleging willful/malicious conduct was futile.
- Utah Supreme Court held §401 can bar wrongful death claims and does not violate the Utah Constitution, but reversed the dismissal because the complaint sufficiently alleged the drowning was caused by a manmade dangerous current that may not be an inherent risk; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §401 bars wrongful death claims | Feldmans: wrongful death is a separate statutory cause of action and not barred by a statute limiting personal-injury suits | City: §401 bars "personal injury" claims and wrongful death derives from the decedent's personal injury, so it applies | Court: §401 may be asserted against wrongful death claims because it implicates the viability of the decedent's underlying personal-injury claim |
| Whether §401 violates Utah Constitution Art. XVI, §5 (Wrongful Death Clause) | Feldmans: application would indirectly abrogate the constitutional right to wrongful-death recovery | City: §401 is a reasonable, narrowly tailored statutory defense that furthers public policy | Court: §401 does not violate the Wrongful Death Clause; it is a permissible defense analogous to the Good Samaritan statute |
| Whether Ms. Feldman's drowning was an "inherent risk" of the recreational activity | Feldmans: death resulted from a manmade dangerous current and therefore was not an inherent, natural risk of walking with dogs | City: a strong/dangerous current is an inherent risk of entering any creek or body of water | Court: factual allegations plausibly show the current was manmade and not necessarily an "integral and natural" risk; dismissal was erroneous and case remanded for factual development |
| Whether amendment to allege willful or malicious conduct could survive §401 | Feldmans: proposed amendment alleged willful/malicious failure to guard or warn, invoking §57-14-204 exception to §57-14-201 | City: amendment futile because §401 contains no willful/malicious exception and facts not sufficiently pled | Court: Agreed amendment was futile as §401 contains no express exception for willful/malicious failure to guard or warn (district court‘s denial not reversible on that basis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. Ga.-Pac. LLC, 345 P.3d 1219 (Utah 2015) (discusses interaction between personal-injury judgments and subsequent wrongful-death claims)
- Bybee v. Abdulla, 189 P.3d 40 (Utah 2008) (explains wrongful death is semi-derivative and identifies which defenses may bind heirs)
- Hirpa v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 948 P.2d 785 (Utah 1997) (Good Samaritan Act is a permissible, narrowly tailored defense to wrongful-death claims)
- Van Wagoner v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 186 P.2d 293 (Utah 1947) (heirs’ wrongful-death action subject to defenses available against the decedent)
- Jensen v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 944 P.2d 327 (Utah 1997) (statute of limitations on decedent's claim can bar wrongful-death action)
- Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991) (analysis of "inherent risks" in a single-activity statutory scheme)
- Golding v. Ashley Cent. Irrigation Co., 902 P.2d 142 (Utah 1995) (discusses the Act's purpose to encourage landowners to open land for recreation)