427 P.3d 467
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- At 6:21 a.m. a motorist called Sanpete County dispatch to report a deer carcass lying in the middle of SR‑89; dispatch did not notify Utah Highway Patrol.
- At ~6:50 a.m. a second motorist hit the carcass, crossed the center line, and collided head‑on with Brady Simons, killing both drivers.
- Brady’s parents sued Sanpete County for negligence, alleging the county failed to notify UHP, remove the carcass, or warn motorists.
- Sanpete County moved for summary judgment, invoking the public duty doctrine.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the county’s conduct was an omission covered by the public duty doctrine and no special relationship existed.
- The Simonses appealed; the Court of Appeals affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public duty doctrine is inapplicable because answering the 911 call was an affirmative act that created a duty | The county performed an affirmative act by operating the 911 center and answering the call, so the doctrine doesn’t bar liability | The failure to relay the report or otherwise act was an omission; the public duty doctrine applies to omissions | Held: County’s conduct was an omission, not an affirmative act, so the public duty doctrine applies |
| Whether a special relationship was formed that would create a duty to Brady | Taking the call and receiving specific information created a specific undertaking and induced reliance, so a special‑relationship exception applies | No specific protective action toward Brady or reliance by Brady occurred (third‑party caller’s reliance insufficient) | Held: No special relationship—county neither took specific action to protect Brady nor did Brady (or a close agent) detrimentally rely on the county |
Key Cases Cited
- Cope v. Utah Valley State College, 342 P.3d 243 (Utah 2014) (distinguishes affirmative acts from omissions; public duty doctrine inapplicable where institution undertook and oversaw activity creating a specific duty)
- Francis v. State, 321 P.3d 1089 (Utah 2013) (articulates special‑relationship exceptions to the public duty doctrine)
- Nelson ex rel. Stuckman v. Salt Lake City, 919 P.2d 568 (Utah 1996) (public duty doctrine bars enforcement of duties owed to the public at large)
- Miller v. West Valley City, 397 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (failure to remove a third party from a swimming lane is an omission; public duty doctrine applies)
- Faucheaux v. Provo City, 343 P.3d 288 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (contrast between affirmative acts that worsen plaintiff’s position and omissions that merely withhold protection)