J.W. v. Utah, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15420

Plaintiffs are a foster couple and their now-adopted children who allege injuries from a foster child placed in their home in August 2002.
The State and its agents are sued under § 1983 and state-law theories for the placement and supervision of the child in plaintiffs’ home.
The district court dismissed several state-law claims under Utah Governmental Immunity Act and granted summary judgment on remaining federal claims.
Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of negligence claims based on immunity and the grant of summary judgment on a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against the caseworker and supervisor.
The caseworker placed the child in plaintiffs’ home after reviewing histories and interactions; plaintiffs allege failure to warn and improper consideration of risk.
Key issue concerns whether the alleged conduct constitutes battery for immunity purposes and whether due process liability exists for the caseworker and supervisor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the negligence claims are barred by governmental immunity	W.C.C.'s conduct constitutes battery, an exception to immunity.	Battery exception to immunity applies; immunity remains for these claims.	Yes; district court affirmed dismissal under the battery exception.
Whether W.C.C.'s actions constitute a battery under Utah law	W.C.C.'s young age and impairments negate intent to harm.	Contacts were deliberate and harmful, fitting battery regardless of age or awareness.	Yes; the conduct falls within the battery definition.
Whether the caseworker is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment claim	Caseworker abdicated professional judgment by placement without proper consideration.	Record shows deliberation and consideration; no abdication; qualified immunity should apply.	Yes; the caseworker's actions did not show a failure of professional judgment.
Whether the supervisor is liable under § 1983 for negligent supervision	Supervisor participated in or knowingly acquiesced in deprivations of rights.	No personal participation or knowledge; negligence insufficient for § 1983 claim.	No; supervisor not liable under § 1983.

Wagner v. State, 122 P.3d 599 (Utah 2005) (battery defined by deliberate contact that is harmful or offensive)
Hoyer v. State, 212 P.3d 547 (Utah 2009) (three-step immunity test for governmental tort claims)
Peck v. State, 191 P.3d 4 (Utah 2008) (clarifies waiver and exceptions to immunity under § 63G-7-301)
Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir.1995) (two exceptions to no-duty rule: special relationship and danger creation)
Johnson v. Holmes, 455 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir.2006) (failure to exercise professional judgment must shock the conscience)
Yvonne L. v. N.M. Dept. of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir.1992) (special relationship doctrine for foster children under state care)
N.M. v. Daniel E., 175 P.3d 566 (Utah 2008) (insurance case discussed for comparative standards)