Winkler v. Lemieux
329 P.3d 849
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Shelby Winkler drove east through a UDOT-controlled construction zone where traffic was limited to one lane with alternating direction under flagger control.
- A UDOT flagger signaled Winkler to proceed; while she was in the zone, a westbound vehicle struck her head-on.
- Winkler sued UDOT, the State, and the other driver for negligence; the district court dismissed UDOT based on governmental immunity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
- The district court held the Licensing Exception applied, treating the flagger's signal as an "approval" or "authorization" exempting UDOT from liability.
- On appeal, Winkler argued the flagger’s signal was not a formal issuance/authorization under the Licensing Exception; the court reviewed statutory immunity de novo.
- The appellate court examined whether the flagger’s act (1) was within UDOT’s regulatory authority and (2) was sufficiently formal to trigger the Licensing Exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Licensing Exception bars Winkler's negligence claim | Winkler: flagger’s hand signal was not a formal "issuance" or "authorization" under the statute | UDOT: the flagger’s signal was an approval/authorization within UDOT's regulatory power and fits the Licensing Exception | Reversed district court: exception does not apply because record lacks evidence the signal was a formal, official authorization |
| Whether UDOT had authority to authorize travel through the work zone | Winkler: (implied) authorization must be formal to qualify | UDOT: statutory authority to restrict/allow lane use in construction zones makes the signal an authorization | Court: UDOT has statutory authority to restrict/allow travel, so the signal was within regulatory power |
| Whether formality requirement is met by the flagger’s conduct | Winkler: no evidence of institutional procedure or formality | UDOT: argued authorization need not be highly formal (relying on prior cases) | Court: record insufficient to find formality; Licensing Exception not established as a matter of law |
| Standard of review for immunity dismissal | Winkler: appellate court reviews legal ruling de novo | UDOT: (not contested) | Court: applied de novo review and reversed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thayer v. Washington County Sch. Dist., 285 P.3d 1142 (Utah 2012) (Licensing Exception requires "authority" and sufficient "formality" for an authorization to qualify)
- Moss v. Pete Suazo Utah Athletic Comm'n, 175 P.3d 1042 (Utah 2007) (Licensing Exception covers approvals and similar authorizations)
- Wheeler v. McPherson, 40 P.3d 632 (Utah 2002) (immunity dismissal reviewed as a legal question de novo)
- Horton v. Royal Order of the Sun, 821 P.2d 1167 (Utah 1991) (pleading standards: accept allegations as true when reviewing dismissal)