379 P.3d 41
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 25, 2012, Lena McTee tripped in a pothole in the Weber Center parking structure and suffered serious injuries.
- A leasing sign at the Weber Center listed Woodbury Corporation contact numbers; multiple public and private tenants (including Weber County departments) occupied the building.
- McTee did not immediately identify the property owner; about a month later a coworker remarked that potholes had long been a problem and McTee later found the potholes filled.
- On Feb. 7, 2013 (one year and 13 days after the fall), McTee’s counsel served a notice of claim on Weber County and related entities and submitted a GRAMA request that produced complex condominium/deed documents implicating multiple private entities and a Municipal Building Authority.
- Weber County moved to dismiss under the Governmental Immunity Act for failure to timely file a notice of claim and for lack of an undertaking; the district court denied dismissal as to timeliness, finding the one-year limitations period began on Feb. 22, 2012.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding McTee exercised reasonable diligence under the Immunity Act given the obscure ownership/management structure and the misleading leasing sign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McTee’s notice of claim was timely under the Immunity Act | McTee argued she did not know—and could not with reasonable diligence have known—the identity of the governmental entity within one year; reasonable diligence permitted about a month to identify the responsible entity | Weber County argued strict compliance required filing within one year of the accident (by Jan. 25, 2013); McTee had means to discover the entity sooner (calling numbers on the sign, asking tenants) and failed to exercise reasonable diligence | Court held the notice was timely: given the obscured ownership/management and the Woodbury leasing sign, a reasonable person was not on inquiry notice that a governmental entity (Weber County) was responsible within 13 days; district court’s discretion was not abused |
Key Cases Cited
- Provo City v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 345 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2015) (mixed question of law and fact review discussion)
- Jaques v. Midway Auto Plaza, Inc., 240 P.3d 769 (Utah 2010) (statutory interpretation is reviewed for correctness)
- Brewster v. Brewster, 241 P.3d 357 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (district court’s reasonableness determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (deferential review when application is fact-dependent)
- Jackson Constr. Co. v. Marrs, 100 P.3d 1211 (Utah 2004) (reasonable diligence requires using readily available sources)
- Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 920 P.2d 575 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (inquiry notice and reasonable diligence framework)
- Wheeler v. McPherson, 40 P.3d 632 (Utah 2002) (Immunity Act demands strict compliance with its requirements)
- Rushton v. Salt Lake County, 977 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1999) (timing/deadline enforcement under Immunity Act)
- Larson v. Park City Mun. Corp., 955 P.2d 343 (Utah 1998) (notice of claim timely if filed with correct governmental body)
- Yearsley v. Jensen, 798 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1990) (dismissing claim filed one day late)
- Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Servs., 345 P.3d 1253 (Utah 2015) (reasonableness determinations entrusted to trial courts)