True v. Utah Department of Transportation
427 P.3d 338
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- In June 2009 UDOT issued a permit approving a contractor's traffic control plan for excavation on a state highway; the permit allowed inspections and required compliance with UDOT instructions.
- UDOT assigned a technician who periodically inspected the site but was not present daily.
- On June 19, 2009 the Trues, on a motorcycle, were injured when a truck turned left into the construction-affected intersection; they sued UDOT, the contractor, and the driver, alleging UDOT negligence in approving the plan, failing to maintain a safe intersection, and failing to monitor traffic control (including removal of a no-left-turn sign).
- UDOT moved for summary judgment conceding proximate causation of injury but arguing immunity under the permit exception in Utah Code § 63G-7-301(5)(c); the district court granted summary judgment applying then-governing but-for causation.
- One day after the district court's oral ruling, the Utah Supreme Court decided Barneck, replacing a but-for test with a proximate-cause standard for exceptions to waiver of governmental immunity; the Trues did not seek reconsideration and the district court entered a written order granting summary judgment.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the Trues failed to preserve the Barneck proximate-cause argument and that, on the preserved record, UDOT’s permit-related actions were formal/authorized actions that reinstated immunity (and the inspection-based exception also supported immunity for monitoring claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UDOT retained immunity under the permit exception given Barneck’s proximate-cause standard | Trues: issuance of the permit did not proximately cause injuries; UDOT’s own negligent supervision/approval caused the harm | UDOT: injuries arose from issuance of the permit; but-for link sufficed and Barneck would not change outcome | Not reached on merits — appellate court held Trues failed to preserve the proximate-cause (Barneck) argument and declined to decide it |
| Whether Trues preserved the proximate-cause argument after Barneck | Trues: overarching immunity issue was preserved; district court’s silence after Barneck suggested no revisit needed | UDOT: Trues did not raise Barneck standard below or seek reconsideration; issue is unpreserved | Held: unpreserved — appellant must have raised the distinct Barneck theory below or show an exception to preservation; Trues did neither |
| Whether permit-related actions were formal/official such that the permit exception applies | Trues: certain omissions (e.g., failing to maintain intersection, allowing sign removal) were informal omissions not covered by permit exception | UDOT: approvals, inspections, and monitoring stemmed from formal permit authority and thus fall within the exception | Held: court upheld district court’s finding that permit issuance was a formal official act and that the challenged actions arose from it, so permit exception applies |
| Whether the inspection exception separately bars suit for monitoring failures | Trues: argued monitoring failures are negligent, not immune | UDOT: inspection exception covers failure to inspect or negligent inspections | Held: district court’s alternative ruling that the inspection exception applied was unchallenged on appeal and supports affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 353 P.3d 140 (Utah 2015) (replaces but-for test with proximate-cause standard for immunity-invoking conditions)
- Thayer v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist., 285 P.3d 1142 (Utah 2012) (permit exception applies only to formal, official regulatory authorizations where the entity has authority)
- Blackner v. State Dep't of Transp., 48 P.3d 949 (Utah 2002) (pre-Barneck precedent applying a but-for causal nexus for permit/license exceptions)
- Moss v. Pete Suazo Utah Athletic Comm'n, 175 P.3d 1042 (Utah 2007) (licensing/permit exception can reach actions related to licensing authority even if not directly a licensing decision)
- Gillman v. Dep't of Fin. Insts., 782 P.2d 506 (Utah 1989) (government’s failure to ensure licensee compliance can arise out of licensing decision)