Cope v. Utah Valley State CollegeCope v. Utah Valley State College
Mark L. Shurtleff, J. Clifford Petersen, and Sandra L. Steinvoort, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Davis, Voros, and Christiansen.
OPINION
VOROS, Judge:
¶1 Shawnna Rae Cope appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Utah Valley State College (UVSC).1 We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 In 2005, Cope was a member of the UVSC Ballroom Dance Tour Team. On September 21, 2005, Cope was injured when she fell while practicing a lift with another team member (Partner). Cope’s instructor (Instructor) was supervising the team’s rehearsal at the time of the injury. Before the injury occurred, Instructor stopped the rehearsal to have sоme couples demonstrate the lift and Instructor then worked with each couple individually on the lift. Instructor realized that Cope and Partner were doing the lift incorrectly. Partner was supposed to lift Cope from his right side over his left shoulder but had been lifting her over his right shoulder. Partner told Instructor, “I’ve never been able to get this lift well.” Executing the lift over the left shoulder was more difficult than executing it over the right shoulder because it required greater strength and momentum to get Cope from Partner’s right side across his body and over his left shoulder. Instructor warned Cope and Partner, “’[E]ither you guys do this or we are going to cut [the lift from the routine].’” Cope testified in her deposition that she considered the lift “the coolest lift [they] had been doing” in the routine. When Cope and Partner attempted the lift over the left shoulder, Partner lost his footing and Cope fell, hitting her head on Partner’s knee and suffering injury.
¶3 In her deposition, Cope testified that she had never danced with Partner before the day of her injury. However, UVSC provided the trial court with a video taken sometime during the week preceding Cope’s injury in which she and Partner were recorded practicing the lift together three times, always over the incorrect shoulder.
¶4 According to Cope’s expert, executing the lift over the left shoulder when Cope and Partner had been practicing it over the right shoulder was at least as difficult and dangerous, if not more so, than attempting an entirely new lift.2 She explained that it was the standard in the industry for dancers to use spotters when learning new lifts. She also opined that Instructor should have used spotters on the lift to decrease the risk of injury until the students indicated that they were comfortable with the lift and Instruсtor determined that they were competent at performing it. Instructor believed
¶5 Cope filed a complaint against UVSC on August 14, 2006. Following discovery, UVSC filed a motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2010, arguing that the alleged facts were insufficient to establish that it had a special relationship with Cope that gave rise to a duty of care. The trial court denied the motion. UVSC renewed its motion on December 20, 2010, based on the video evidence showing that Cope and Partner had practiced the lift together, albeit incorrectly, on at least one occasion prior to the date of Cope’s injury. In light of this evidence, the trial court revised its earlier decision. It determined that Cope, aware of the couple’s prior difficulty in performing the lift, nevertheless accepted the risk of continuing to attempt it rather than have the “’coolest’ part of the routine” cut. The trial court concluded that because Instructor gave Cope the option of either learning the lift correctly or having it cut from the routine, Cope could have elected not to do the difficult lift without further consequence and thereby avoided her injury. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that no special relationship arose and that Instructor thus owed Cope no duty of care.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶6 Cope first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by reconsidering its original denial of UVSC’s motion for summary judgment. “A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider summary judgment is within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” Timm v. Dewsnup, 921 P.2d 1381, 1386 (Utah 1996) (emphasis omitted).
¶7 Cope also contends that the trial court erred in granting UVSC’s motion for summary judgment because a special relationship existed between Cope and Instructor. Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
I. Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment
¶8 Cope contends that the trial court erred by reconsidering its original denial of UVSC’s motion for summary judgment. Cope’s argument relies on
¶9 However, the relevant rule here is not
¶10 We next consider whether the trial court erred in determining that UVSC owed no duty of care to Cope on the ground that no special relationship existed between Cope and Instructor. “The issue of whether a duty exists is entirely a question of law to be determined by the court.” Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149, 151 (Utah 1989).
¶11 “Duty must be determined as a matter of law and on a categorical basis for a given class of tort claims.” B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 23, 275 P.3d 228. Duty determinations should be expressed in “relatively clear, categorical, bright-line rules of law applicable to a general class of cases.”
¶12 When governmental actors are involved, special considerations apply to a duty analysis. “As a matter of public policy, we do not expose governmental actors to tort liability for all mishaps that may befall the public in the course of conducting their duties.” Webb v. University of Utah, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 11, 125 P.3d 906. The public duty doctrine limits a governmental actor’s duty to situations where a special relationship exists between the government and specific individuals:
The public duty doctrine provides that although a government entity owes a general duty to all members of the public, that duty does not impose a specific duty of due care on the government with respect to individuals who may be harmed by governmental action or inaction, unless there is
some specific connection between the government agency and the individuals that makes it reasonable to impose a duty.
Day v. State ex rel. Utah Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 12, 980 P.2d 1171 (citations omitted). Thus, a government actor owes no specific duty of care to the undifferentiated general public, but only to those persons “who stand so far apart from the general public that we can describe them as having a special relationship to the governmental actor.” Webb, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 11; see also Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 236–39 (Utah 1993). A number of circumstances may indicate that an individual or distinct group stands sufficiently apart from the general public tо create a special relationship, including “governmental actions that reasonably induce detrimental reliance by a member of the public” or a distinct group. See Day, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 13 (identifying “[a]t least four circumstances [that] may give rise to a special relationship between the government and specific individuals“); Higgins, 855 P.2d at 238–40 (recognizing that special relationships may extend to members of a distinct group).
¶13 Under Jeffs, the scope of a special relationship is determined on a categorical level, applicable to a general class of cases. See 2012 UT 11, ¶ 23. But “whether a special relationship exists depends upon a careful evaluation of the facts.” Wilson v. Valley Mental Health, 969 P.2d 416, 419 (Utah 1998). The facts determine whether a particular case falls into a general class of cases where a special relationship еxists. See id. at 418–20 (identifying a general class of cases where a special relationship exists and discussing the facts to determine whether the case falls into that category); Higgins, 855 P.2d at 237–39 (same); Rollins v. Petersen, 813 P.2d 1156, 1162 (Utah 1991) (same); Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151–52 (same); Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, 415–16 (Utah 1986) (same); Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist., 2012 UT App 204, ¶¶ 29–32, 283 P.3d 1009 (same). But see Cruz v. Middlekauff Lincoln–Mercury, Inc., 909 P.2d 1252, 1255–56 (Utah 1996) (suggesting that the duty analysis may turn on consideration of “special circumstances” unique to the facts of each case). Although disputed facts relevant to the special relationship inquiry should be resolved by the factfinder, see Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21, 215 P.3d 152, whether the facts of a particular case place that case within a special relationship category is a matter of law for the court to decide, see Ferree, 784 P.2d at 151.
¶15 The difficult question “is to determine how much loss of autonomy a student must sustain and how much peril must be present to establish a special relationship.” Webb, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 25. Webb itself answers this question. There, an earth sciences student participated in a field trip to a condominium project to examine fault lines. The course instructor directed the students to walk on icy and snowy sidewalks through the condominium project. One student slipped and pulled Webb down. The fall injured Webb. See id. ¶ 2.
¶16 Our supreme court held that the instructor’s directive to walk on the icy sidewalk did not create a special relationship. See id. ¶ 27. “A directive received in connection with a college course assignment is an act that would engage the attention of the prudent student.” Id. ¶ 26. Nevertheless, the directive in Webb “did not relate directly to the academic enterprise of the class,” but bore only a “tangential relationship to the field trip’s academic mission.” Id. ¶ 27. Thus, the court conсluded, the instructor did not “exert the control which might be present in an academic setting to create a special relationship.” Id. In other words, while the injured student might have relied on the course instructor’s expertise in inspecting geologic features, he had no reason to rely on the course instructor’s judgment with respect to navigating icy sidewalks. Thus, while Webb involved a directive given by a teacher to a student, no special relationship was created, because the directive was not given within the scope of the academic enterprise.
¶18 Moreover, unlike the directive in Webb, here the directive was given within the scope of the academic enterprise. Cope fell during a rehearsal of the UVSC Ballroom Dance Tour Team. In that context a student does have reason to rely on the dance-related directives of her instructor. Unlike the plaintiff in Webb, a student in this circumstance could be expected to “relinquish a measure of behavioral autonomy to [her] instructor out of deference to [his] superior knowledge, skill, and experience.” See id. ¶ 24. She would reasonably believe that her instructor has “command of the subject matter and the environment in which it is taught.” See id. ¶ 26. She would “understand that [her] academic success, measured . . . by the degree of knowledge [or skill] acquired . . . , turned on whether [she] abandoned all internal signals of peril to take a particular potentially hazardous [action].” See id. ¶ 27. Thus, unlike in Webb, Instructor’s directives to Cope did “relate directly to the academic enterprise of the class,” and bore a direct, not tangential, relationship to the dance program’s “aсademic mission.” See id. It was “a directive received in connection with a college course assignment that would engage the attention of the prudent student” and thus was a “logical candidate” to
¶19 Indeed, one factor not discussed in Webb is also present here. In Webb, the directive was a general one; the instructor directed “Mr. Webb and other students” to walk on icy and snowy sidewalks. Id. ¶ 2. Here the directive was specific. Instructor “stopped the rehearsal [and] went to each couple to see where the timing issues were.” When he reached Cope and Partner, he instructed them, by name, how to achieve the lift, and did so in terms clearly implying that the lift was safely achievable with a bit more effort: “[Cope], you just need to kick. [Partner], you need to push more or lift more.” In this circumstance, it would be a rare student who refused to rely on the superior experience and expertise of her instructor.
¶20 It is true, as the dissent notes, that “Instructor told Cope and Partner only that they must practice the lift correctly, not that they must practice it without spotters.” Infra ¶ 39. And based on this case-specific fact, the trier of fact may well determine that Instructor did not breach the duty of care that he owed Cope in this circumstance. Insofar as whether a duty existed, however, Webb makes clear that the distinction between acts and omissions is not dispositive: “a special relationship relating to a governmental actor can result in the imposition of liability for either her acts or her failure to act.” Webb, 2005 UT 80, ¶ 13. It follows that, here, Cope “stand[s] so far apart from the general public“—and indeed, so far apart from the other students in the class—“that we can describe [her] as having a special relationship to the governmental actor.” See id. ¶ 11.
¶22 Similarly, in Orr v. Brigham Young University, 960 F. Supp. 1522 (D. Utah 1994), aff’d without published opinion, 108 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997), a Utah federal district court applied Utah law in determining whether a private university owed an injured football player an affirmative duty of care. The court rejected the player’s claim of “a special relationship with the university by virtue of his football player status.” Id. at 1529. Specifically, the court rejected the football player’s claim that, “by playing football for BYU, he became in essence a ward of the university without any vestige of free will or independence.” Id. at 1528.5 The court relied on the distinction between “’a large undifferentiated group, such as a university student body,’” and “’narrow classes of individuals who for some reason were distinguishable from the mass.’” Id. (quoting Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 236–37 (Utah 1993)). Although the court found no special relationship that would create a duty to act, the court acknowledged that “when training . . . services are provided and then negligently performed, liability could result under existing theories of negligence.” Id.6 Here, Cope does not claim that by dancing on the UVSC Ballroom Dance Tour Team she became in essence a ward of the university; rather, she аlleges that she was injured when training services were being provided in such a way as to create a special relationship. See Webb v. University of Utah, 2005 UT 80, ¶¶ 14, 16, 125 P.3d 906 (noting that the commission of an affirmative act by a governmental actor does not create a duty by itself, “but instead provides relevant
¶23 UVSC cites several cases holding that a duty of reasonable care arises only when a coach or instructor increases the risk of harm beyond that inherent in an activity. See, e.g., Bushnell v. Japanese Am. Religious & Cultural Ctr., 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671, 673–74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that a judo student could recover only for an instructor’s reckless or intentional conduct, noting that duty sounding in negligence extended only to an instructor’s actions that increase the risk inherent in the activity); Crace v. Kent State Univ., 2009-Ohio-6898, ¶¶ 13–15, 924 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio Ct. App.) (applying same standard to a university cheerleading instructor). However, the existence of a duty and the appropriate standard of care are two distinct questions. See Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993) (“In establishing the existence of a duty, the same analysis is used for both a negligence and a gross negligence claim. The difference between the two lies in the degree of care to which the defendant is held.“). We believe the concerns raised in the cases cited by UVSC are best addressed by adopting an ordinary standard of reasonable care. See Kahn v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., 75 P.3d 30, 51–52 (Cal. 2003) (Kennard, J., concurring and dissenting) (stating that the risk of harm inherent in active sports could be accounted for by holding high school coaches to a standard of ordinary care).
¶24 A duty of reasonable care generally encompasses a duty not to create an unreasonable risk of harm. See Reighard v. Yates, 2012 UT 45, ¶¶ 29–31, 285 P.3d 1168; B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 21 & n.11, 275 P.3d 228. What may be reasonable in one setting may not be reasonable in another. Ordinarily participants cannot reasonably expect instructors or coaches to insulate them from risks inherent in an activity in which they voluntarily engage. See, e.g., Kahn, 75 P.3d at 38–43 (majority opinion). But whether, under the circumstances of this case, Instructor created an unreasonable risk of harm, increased the risk inherent in competitive ballroom dancing, or was otherwise unreasonable in his acts and omissions is a question for the trier of fact.
¶25 UVSC also argues that policy considerations weigh against imposing a duty of care on coaches of physically strenuous activities. If a duty of reasonable care is imposed, UVSC argues, instructors will hesitate to challenge participants to excel. See generally id. (holding that imposing a general duty of reasonable care would chill
¶26 We do not believe our application of the duty outlined in Webb to the facts of this case is either incapable of performance or fundamentally at odds with the instructor–student relationship. Participants in sports or extra-curricular programs look to the instructor for direction as they acquire the skills needed to compete. They trust in the instructor’s training, expertise, and apprеciation of the risks involved. Participants expect instructors to challenge them to excel, but they also expect those instructors to act reasonably in doing so. Furthermore, the standard of reasonable care mitigates the policy concerns raised by UVSC: it leaves “coaches free to challenge or push their students to advance their skills level as long as they do so without exposing the student athletes to an unreasonable risk of harm.” See Kahn, 75 P.3d at 52 (Kennard, J., concurring and dissenting).
¶27 We conclude that the undisputed facts in this case establish the existence of a special relationship and thus a duty of reasonable care on the part of Instructor. We caution that the existence of this duty does not resolve questions of breach and proximate cause. Whether the risks involved for these particular dancers in perfоrming this particular lift without spotters would cause a reasonable dance instructor to take particular precautions to protect Cope from a fall is a question of breach. And, if Instructor failed to act reasonably in this regard, whether that failure proximately caused Cope’s fall and injuries is a question of causation. See Jeffs, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 26. “Both of those questions are case-specific and fact-intensive, and they are not before us on this appeal.” Id. ¶ 28.
CONCLUSION
¶28 Because the trial court’s denial of UVSC’s first motion for summary judgment was not a final order, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reconsidering and revising it. Because the facts, considered in the light most favorable to Cope, establish a
J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge
¶29 I CONCUR:
Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
DAVIS, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
¶30 I concur with the majority as to part I but reject both the majority’s analysis and its conclusion with respect to part II. I believe that the rule articulated by the majority concerning the existence of a special relationship between university students and their instructors significantly broadens the duty of governmental actors in this setting and is inconsistent with the supreme court’s holding in Webb v. University of Utah, 2005 UT 80, 125 P.3d 906.
¶31 In Webb, the supreme court gave specific guidance as to when a special relationship arises between university students and their instructors: “[A] special relationship may be created ’by governmental actions that reasonably induce detrimental reliance by a member of the public.’” Id. ¶ 26 (quoting Day v. State, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 13, 980 P.2d 1171); see also Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, 415 (Utah 1986) (explaining that special relationships “generally arise when one assumes responsibility for another’s safety or deprives another of his or her normal opportunities for self-
¶32 The majority rejects the narrow, fact-dependent rule articulated in Webb in favor of a much broader rule recognizing a special relationship whenever a university teacher or coach gives a directive to a student “within the scope of the academic enterprise.” See supra ¶ 17.1 It then imposes a duty of reasonable care on instructors giving any such course-related directives, redefining the risk and control analysis articulated in Webb by asserting that it pertains to the breach of the instructor’s duty rather than to the existence of the duty itself.
¶34 The Jeffs court explained that in determining whether one individual has a duty to another, we begin with the general rule that “we all have a duty to exercise care when engaging in affirmative conduct that creates a risk of physical harm to others.” 2012 UT 11, ¶ 21. We then examine other factors “in determining whether to carve out an exception to the general rule,” including “the foreseeability or likelihood of injury, public policy as to which party can best bear the loss occasioned by the injury, and other general policy considerations.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). These factors must be considered “at a categorical level” so that we can determine duty “as a matter of law and on a categorical basis for a given class of tort claims.” Id. ¶ 23. Thus, the Jeffs court determined that it would be inappropriate to carve out an exception for healthcare providers prescribing drugs that would make “the duty question . . . turn on the specific combination of pharmaceuticals that . . . prescribed or the particular injury that it allegedly caused.” Id. The court explained that so long as there were any circumstances within “[t]he relevant category of cases consist[ing] of healthcare providers negligently prescribing medications to patients who then injure third parties,” a duty should be imposed on all healthcare providers within that category. Id. ¶¶ 27–28. The fact that the negligent prescription of certain, more innocuous medications “may very well involve little foreseeable risk of injury” was irrelevant to the question of duty and only appropriately considered in the context of the more “case-specific and fact-intensive” issues of breach and proximate cause. See id. ¶ 28.
¶36 Although “duty is a purely legal issue for the court to decide,” Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, ¶ 17, 215 P.3d 152, “factual issues may bear on . . . issue[s] . . . relat[ing] to duty,” id. ¶ 21. For example, in Cruz v. Middlekauff Lincoln–Mercury, Inc., 909 P.2d 1252 (Utah 1996), the supreme court considered whether a car dealеrship had a duty to a third party who was injured when someone stole a car from the dealership after the keys were left in the ignition. See id. at 1253. The categorical rule regarding duty in that circumstance is that “[o]ne having a lawful right to the possession of property, such as an automobile, although negligent in leaving the keys therein, has no duty to respond in damages caused by a thief who takes it and runs into a third party’s vehicle.” Id. at 1255 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But the court explained that where “special circumstances” exist that would have “increase[d] the foreseeability of risk to others” by putting the defendant “on notice that its cars were targeted by thieves,” a duty may nevertheless be imposed. id. at 1255–57. Thus, the court determined that the disputed existence of such circumstances was a question of fact bearing on the aрplicability of an exception to the categorical rule imposing no duty, and that the dispute precluded the court from granting a motion to dismiss. See id. at 1257. Similarly, the issue of whether a university instructor’s actions give rise to a special relationship is a question of fact bearing upon the legal issue of whether an exception to the public duty doctrine applies.
¶37 In a case such as Jeffs, where the categorical rule imposes a duty, it is a simple matter to weigh factual considerations that might ultimately relieve the defendant of
¶38 Although an analysis of duty in the context of university instructors may, at times, require the factfinder to make determinations relating to the fact-dependent special relationship issue, see Normandeau, 2009 UT 44, ¶ 21; Cruz, 909 P.2d at 1257, I believe that here, as a matter of law, Cope has failed to allege sufficient facts to give rise to a special relationship.3 “[A] college instructor who has no special relationship with
¶39 But there is nothing in the facts to suggest that Instructor’s directive included, either explicitly or implicitly, a requirement that Cope and Partner practice without spotters. Instructor told Cope and Partner only that they must practice the lift correctly, not that they must practice it without spotters. And there is nоthing to suggest that Instructor would not have permitted the dancers to use spotters had they requested them or even to suggest that Cope did not request spotters because she felt that she lacked the autonomy to make such a request.4 Thus, it was not necessary for Cope and Partner to ignore internal signals of peril and confront an obvious danger in order to
¶40 Because the facts considered in the light most favorable to Cope fail to establish a special relationship between Instructor and Cope, I believe that the trial court correctly granted UVSC’s renewed motion for summary judgment. Thus, I would affirm.
James Z. Davis, Judge
Notes
Id. This clarification indicates that the Webb court intended a much narrower rule than that articulated by the majority in this case. Furthermore, it confirms that the existence of a special relationship does turn, at least to some degree, on the risk implicated by the instructor’s directive and the control the instructor exercised over the student.By this we mean [whether] it is . . . reasonable to believe that any student would understand that his academic success, measured either by the degree of knowledge acquired or by the positive impression made on the instructor, turned on whether they abandoned all internal signals of peril to [engage in] a potentially hazardous [action] . . . .