Kerr v. City of Salt Lake, 322 P.3d 669

Kerr injured when he tripped on a raised sidewalk displacement (0.75–1 inch) in Salt Lake City becoming kneecap fracture.
Accident occurred near the Metropolitan Inn; Inn owner knew of a long-standing sidewalk displacement and requested city repair.
City policy provided several response options: horizontal saw cutting for small displacements, cost-based replacement upon adjacent landowner payment, or barricading/replacing if the condition was dangerous.
City inspected within seven days of notice and prepared an estimate offering replacement if the Inn paid $546; Kerr was injured the day after the estimate.
Kerr sued for negligent sidewalk maintenance; city moved for summary judgment claiming discretionary immunity and lack of notice; the trial court denied the motion, leading to trial and post-trial rulings including a new trial and a second trial resulting in Kerr’s verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discretionary function immunity applies to the city’s sidewalk decision	Kerr argues immunity does not apply because the decision was an operational maintenance act	Salt Lake City contends the decision is a discretionary policy choice	Not immune; four-factor Little test not all affirmative, so waiver applies
Whether Kerr showed adequate notice to remedy at summary judgment	Kerr contends there was sufficient notice evidence to create a dispute	City argues no material fact on notice at summary judgment	Review of summary-judgment notice dispute not proper on appeal; denial stands (issues reserved for trial)
Whether Kerr presented sufficient notice evidence at trial to support liability	Kerr presented constructive and actual notice evidence showing time to remedy	City argues no adequate notice as a matter of law	Sufficient evidence to raise material fact; directed verdict denied; second trial proceeded with Kerr’s verdict
Evidentiary rulings and invited error	Kerr argues trial court erred in excluding certain opinions on danger	City asserts invited-error doctrine and other limits on testimony	Invited-error doctrine bars appellate review of those evidentiary rulings; other rulings sustained on record

Little v. Utah State Division of Family Services, 667 P.2d 49 (Utah 1983) (four-question test for discretionary function immunity)
Johnson v. Utah Dept. of Transp., 133 P.3d 402 (Utah 2006) (discretionary function immunity not available when policy and operational discretion not present)
Laney v. Fairview City, 57 P.3d 1007 (Utah 2002) (applies discretionary function analysis; four affirmative questions yield immunity)
Keegan v. State, 896 P.2d 618 (Utah 1995) (affirmative policy-discretion results in immunity; distinguishes policy decisions from operational ones)
Goebel v. Salt Lake City S.R.R. Co., 104 P.3d 1185 (Utah 2004) (necessity of notice and time to remedy; constructive/actual knowledge proof)
Stuckman ex rel. Nelson v. Salt Lake City, 575-76 (Utah 1996) (Utah 1996) (fence repair not warranting immunity; operational decision)