Torrie v. Weber County
309 P.3d 216
Utah2013Background
- Wayne Torrie, a 16-year-old, left home in his family SUV after expressing suicidal intent and later drove into Weber County; his mother told dispatch he might crash the vehicle if pursued but did not ask police to stop searching.
- Deputy Denton Harper located Wayne, activated lights at a stop sign, Wayne fled, and Harper pursued at high speeds (Harper reported ~75 mph; vehicle data showed up to 99 mph).
- Within about a minute of pursuit, Wayne’s SUV left the road, rolled, and Wayne was ejected and died.
- Wayne’s parents sued Deputy Harper and Weber County alleging negligence, respondeat superior, willful misconduct, and wrongful death; district court granted summary judgment for defendants holding no duty was owed to the fleeing suspect.
- The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether Utah Code § 41-6a-212’s duty (that emergency vehicle operators must act as reasonably prudent operators) extends to fleeing suspects and whether Weber County separately owed a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law enforcement owes a duty of care to fleeing suspects under Utah Code § 41-6a-212 | The statute’s plain language imposes a duty on emergency vehicle operators to act as reasonably prudent operators, which includes fleeing suspects | No duty exists to fleeing suspects; statute should be read to protect only innocent third parties | Held: The statute’s plain language imposes a duty to act reasonably that includes fleeing suspects; summary judgment for lack of duty reversed as to Harper |
| Whether Day v. State precludes imposing duty to fleeing suspects | Day’s dicta and analysis support a duty to consider safety of the fleeing suspect | Defendants relied on other jurisdictions and readings of similar statutes to limit duty to third parties | Held: Day’s reasoning is consistent with imposing a statutory duty here; court relied on plain statutory text rather than contrary out-of-state interpretations |
| Whether breach and proximate cause resolved on summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued Harper breached the statutory duty and causation are fact issues unsuitable for summary judgment | Defendants argued no duty existed so no need to reach breach/causation | Held: Duty exists as a matter of law; breach and proximate cause are fact-specific and remain for trial |
| Whether Weber County (the agency) separately owed a duty based on policies, training, or supervision | Plaintiffs assumed agency liability follows officer liability and did not separately develop argument or authority | Defendants argued agency not separately liable on summary judgment grounds | Held: Plaintiffs failed to meet appellate briefing burden to show agency duty; summary judgment for Weber County affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. State ex rel. Utah Dep't of Public Safety, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999) (recognized statutory duty for officers to act reasonably during high-speed pursuits and discussed factors relevant to reasonableness)
- Jeffs ex rel. B.R. v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (explains duty is a question of law distinct from breach and proximate cause)
- Crestwood Cove Apartments Bus. Trust v. Turner, 164 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2007) (laid out negligence-element framework used by the court)
- Richards v. Brown, 274 P.3d 911 (Utah 2012) (statutory-construction principles: clear statutory language controls)