Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a condominium resident, was injured when she tripped on tree root offshoots within the common area of her complex. Plaintiff sued the complex's contract property management company, claiming that the company was negligent in the performance of its maintenance and landscaping responsibilities at the condominium. The district court concluded that the company owed the resident no duty of care and granted the company's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the company lived up to its obligations under the maintenance contract, exercised insufficient control to be treated as a possessor of land, and did not voluntarily undertake root maintenance activities, the company did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care and thus was not negligent. View "Hill v. Superior Prop. Mgmt. Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while participating in a guided horseback ride near Sundance Resort. Prior to the ride, Plaintiff signed a release (waiver) waiving her right to sue Defendants, Sundance-related entities (collectively, Sundance) for injuries caused by Sundance's ordinary negligence. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the waiver was unenforceable under the Limitations on Liability for Equine and Livestock Activities Act (Equine Act) and that it violated the public policy expressed in the Equine Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Equine Act does not invalidate preinjury releases for ordinary negligence, nor does the Equine Act evidence a public policy bargain struck by the legislature; and (2) therefore, the waiver is enforceable.View "Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd. " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, homeowners, filed a negligence action against a water conservancy district (the District) after one of its water pipelines broke, resulting in damage to Plaintiffs' home. The district court granted summary judgment for the District, concluding that Plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim because they had failed to designate an expert to testify regarding the applicable standard of care. The court of appeals reversed, finding expert testimony was unnecessary because the District's previous internal decision that the pipeline should be replaced sustained a standard of care calling for replacement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the District's determination recommending replacement did not establish that replacement was required by the standard of care; and (2) Plaintiffs' failure to designate an expert to establish a basis for a duty to replace a pipeline was fatal to their negligence claim. View "Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff received treatment at the University Hospital for injuries she received in an automobile accident. Plaintiff later sued the Hospital, alleging that she was rendered a paraplegic due to the Hospital's negligence. After a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the Hospital. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the court of appeals' application of the "cure-or-waive rule" yielded an unfair result in this case; and (2) the court of appeals incorrectly determined that it was harmless error for the district court to include one of the jury instructions. In so holding, the Court rejected the cure-or-waive rule in its entirety and adopted a new standard set forth in People v. Hopt governing preservation of jury bias. View "Turner v. Univ. of Utah Hosps. & Clinics" on Justia Law

Sixteen-year-old Wayne Torrie's mother asked law enforcement officers to locate Wayne, who had left home in his family's vehicle, and bring him into custody. A Weber County sheriff's deputy spotted Wayne and pursued him until Wayne reached speeds up to ninety-nine miles per hour. Wayne's vehicle then left the road and rolled over, ejecting Wayne, who ultimately died from his injuries. Wayne's parents filed a lawsuit against the deputy and the county, alleging various theories of negligence in connection with the deputy's pursuit of their son. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Defendants owed no duty to Wayne. The Supreme Court (1) reversed summary judgment for the deputy, holding that law enforcement officers engaged in pursuit owe a duty of care to all persons, including fleeing suspects; and (2) affirmed summary judgment for the county, holding that the Torries failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the district court erred in ruling that the county owes a fleeing suspect a duty of care with respect to its law enforcement agency's implementation of policies and procedures regarding vehicular pursuits and with regard to the supervision and training provided to its officers. Remanded. View "Torrie v. Weber County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were camping with their young son, Sam, when a bear pulled Sam from out of his tent and killed him. The bear was the same bear that had attacked another camper in the same campsite earlier that day. Plaintiffs sued the State, alleging that the State negligently failed to warn them of the dangerous condition created by the bear. The district court initially dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the permit exception to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the State filed a motion for summary judgment, raising two alternative arguments that the Supreme Court declined to address in Francis I. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for the State on both duty and immunity grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the State was entitled to present its alternative arguments on remand; (2) the State owed Plaintiffs a duty because it undertook no specific action to protect them as the next group to use the campsite; and (3) the natural condition exception to the Immunity Act did not immunize the State from liability because a bear is not a "natural condition on publicly owned or controlled lands." View "Francis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants were defrauded by an individual on parole from a Utah prison. Appellants filed a complaint alleging causes of action against the State for negligent supervision, gross negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation. Under the Governmental Immunity Act, the State is immune from a suit where the injury arises out of deceit. The district court dismissed the case based on the State's governmental immunity, finding that Appellants' injury was the result of a third-party's deceit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was immune under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act's deceit exception; and (2) the dismissal of Appellants' complaint on the basis of governmental immunity was timely. View "Van De Grift v. State" on Justia Law

Michael Howe, an employee of Peak Alarm Company, filed a complaint against the City and several of its employees, presenting ten federal and state claims, including false arrest and defamation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on these and other state claims on the ground that Howe failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA). The supreme Court reversed, holding that the claims were timely brought under the UGIA. On remand, Defendants again moved for summary judgment, arguing that the state defamation and false arrest claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the claims had been timely brought under the UGIA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the UGIA comprehensively governs claims against governmental parties such that plaintiffs are not bound to observe the statute of limitations that would apply to claims against private parties. View "Peak Alarm v. Salt Lake City Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter asking for her authorization to permit the release of her medical and employment records for the last twenty years. Plaintiff declined. The district court granted a motion to compel Plaintiff to sign the authorizations. On an interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court's order granting the motion to compel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not misstate or misconstrue the factual background in evaluating the issues on appeal; (2) because Defendants did not comply with the procedural requirements of Utah R. Civ. P. 34 in serving the letters, the district court abused its discretion by compelling Plaintiff to sign the authorizations under Utah R. Civ. P. 37; and (3) the court of appeals did not err when it suggested that Defendants may use the subpoena process to obtain records from out-of-state third parties. Remanded. View "Rahofy v. Steadman Land & Livestock, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff underwent several medical procedures performed by Defendants, two medical doctors. Two years and three months after the treatment ended, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against Defendants. Upon a motion by Dr. Grigsby, one of the doctors, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's claim, finding that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly found that, as a matter of law, Dr. Grigsby failed to show Plaintiff filed her claim more than two years after she discovered or should have discovered her legal injury; but (2) when a plaintiff alleges a course of negligent treatment, a defendant may show that the claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations without identifying the specific procedure within the course of treatment that caused the patient's injury. Rather, to prevail, a defendant need only show that the plaintiff filed her claim more than two years after she discovered that the course of treatment was negligent. Remanded. View "Arnold v. Grigsby" on Justia Law