Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc.
2015 UT 64
Utah2015Background
- Mika Scott sued Utah County after an inmate, Shawn Leonard, escaped from a county-operated work-release (Jail Industries) placement and brutally attacked her on a public trail, causing severe injuries.
- Utah County recruited private employers for the program, screened inmates with minimal staff and supervision, retained most of inmates’ wages, and provided little to no on-site supervision of inmates at private worksites.
- Scott alleged the County improperly screened Leonard despite a known potential for violent behavior and that the County’s negligence in placement/supervision led to her injuries.
- The district court dismissed Scott’s negligence claim for lack of duty and, alternatively, on grounds of governmental immunity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act; Scott appealed as to the County only (claims against private employers were later settled/mooted).
- The Utah Supreme Court considered (1) whether custodians of dangerous persons owe a duty to third parties and (2) whether application of the Governmental Immunity Act violated the Utah Constitution’s open courts clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custodians of dangerous persons owe a duty to third parties absent awareness of a specific target | Scott: adopt Restatement §319 — duty arises if custodian knows or should know person likely to cause harm, no specific-target requirement | County: follow Rollins line — duty exists only when custodian knows of a threat to an identifiable individual or discrete group | Court overruled Rollins and adopted Restatement §319; duty exists when custodian knows/should know person likely to harm others if not controlled |
| Whether the County owed Scott a duty under the adopted standard | Scott: County actively created risk by placing inmates in community with inadequate screening/supervision | County: no duty to the general public; Rollins forecloses duty here | Court held County owed Scott a duty because operating the work-release program was an affirmative act, custody existed, risk was foreseeable, and County best able to avert losses |
| Whether the Governmental Immunity Act, as applied, violates Utah’s open courts clause by abrogating pre-existing causes of action | Scott: expanded immunity eliminated a cause of action that existed pre-1987 and no adequate alternative remedy was provided | County: even pre-1987, activities like incarceration/rehabilitation were core governmental functions and immune under Standiford test | Court held Act constitutional as applied: work-release/rehabilitation is a core governmental function under Standiford, so County was immune and Scott’s claim barred |
| Procedural consequence: disposition | Scott: remand/allow negligence claim against County | County: affirm dismissal on immunity grounds | Court affirmed district court’s dismissal of Scott’s negligence claim against Utah County |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156 (Utah 1991) (previous rule requiring identifiable victim/group for custodian duty)
- Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 (Utah 1989) (applied Rollins-related no-duty rule for releases)
- Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231 (Utah 1993) (applied/expanded Rollins analysis)
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (articulated multi-factor categorical duty analysis: act vs omission, relationship, foreseeability, allocation of loss, policy)
- Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., 605 P.2d 1230 (Utah 1980) (test for governmental function: unique to government or essential to core governmental activity)
- Tindley v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 116 P.3d 295 (Utah 2005) (application of Standiford in open courts context)