409 P.3d 114
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2013, then-16-year-old David Drake Larsen alleges a Davis High School teacher initiated a sexual relationship with him that included on-campus meetings and sexual intercourse.
- Larsen sued Davis County School District in 2015 for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress and vicarious liability for the teacher’s sexual misconduct and seduction.
- Larsen alleged the District knew or should have known of the teacher’s prior sexual misconduct and had previously reprimanded but not terminated or adequately supervised her.
- The District moved to dismiss under Utah Rule 12(b)(6), asserting governmental immunity under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, arguing the Act’s exception for injuries proximately caused by assault or battery bars Larsen’s suit.
- The district court dismissed, finding the teacher’s conduct constituted an assault/battery that was at least a proximate cause of Larsen’s injuries. Larsen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governmental Immunity Act waives immunity for the District’s alleged negligence | Larsen: subsection (4) waives immunity for negligent acts; District’s negligence caused his injuries | District: subsection (5) excepts immunity waiver when injury arises out of or results from assault or battery | Court: If an assault/battery is a proximate cause of the injury, immunity under subsection (5) reinstates and bars the claim |
| Whether the teacher’s sexual conduct qualifies as "assault"/"battery" given asserted consent | Larsen: he consented; conduct was non-coercive so not a battery | District: statutory and civil definitions treat sexual contact with a minor by a teacher as harmful/offensive as a matter of law | Held: Contact was a battery—minors cannot legally consent to sex with an adult teacher or with an adult ≥10 years older—so assault/battery exception applies |
| Whether plaintiff’s damages can be parsed to allow suit for non-physical harms (texts/conversations) while immune-conduct bars physical-harm claims | Larsen: some injuries stem from non-physical misconduct and should remain actionable | District: the alleged battery/proximate causation of overall injuries triggers immunity for the claimed injury | Held: Plaintiff pleaded a single undifferentiated set of damages; Barneck requires reinstatement of immunity when battery is a proximate cause, so plaintiff cannot avoid immunity by recharacterizing damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Barneck v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 353 P.3d 140 (Utah 2015) (immunity-exception language requires proximate causation; if an assault/battery is a proximate cause, immunity is reinstated)
- Thayer v. Washington County School Dist., 285 P.3d 1142 (Utah 2012) (three-part Governmental Immunity Act analysis; discussion of apportionment in dissent)
- Graves v. North E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (Liability Reform Act requires apportionment of fault between negligent and intentional tortfeasors)
- Elkington v. Foust, 618 P.2d 37 (Utah 1980) (minor cannot consent to sexual contact; consent is not a defense in such civil battery claims)
- Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. Ogden City School Dist., 927 P.2d 159 (Utah 1996) (assault need not be sole cause; prior case law on immunity where assault contributed to injury)
- Ledfors v. Emery County School Dist., 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993) (earlier decision lamenting lack of civil remedy against negligent school personnel)