Erickson v. Canyons School District
2020 UT App 91 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim against a governmental entity will not be dismissed at the pleading stage under the battery exception to governmental immunity if the plaintiff can plausibly prove a set of facts, consistent with the complaint, showing the actor who caused the harm lacked the requisite intent for battery. To commit a battery, an actor must either desire to cause a harmful or offensive contact or be substantially certain that such a contact will result from their actions.
Facts:
- Juel Erickson was a student attending a school assembly in her high school's gymnasium.
- A school supervisor confiscated a flagpole from other students and it was eventually placed under the bleachers.
- Another student (Student) retrieved the flagpole from underneath the bleachers.
- Student then climbed to the top of the bleachers and threw the flagpole into the crowd of students below.
- The flagpole struck Erickson in the head, knocking her unconscious.
- Erickson subsequently suffered from neck injuries and post-concussive symptoms.
- No high school employee called an ambulance or provided Erickson with any medical care after she was struck.
Procedural Posture:
- Juel Erickson filed a complaint in the Third District Court for Salt Lake County (trial court) against Canyons School District and others, alleging negligence.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was barred by governmental immunity because the injury arose from a battery.
- The district court denied the School District's motion to dismiss, finding it was too early to determine if a battery had occurred.
- Canyons School District (Appellant) petitioned for permission to appeal the interlocutory order.
- The Utah Supreme Court transferred the petition to the Utah Court of Appeals, which granted the petition to hear the appeal. Juel Erickson is the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the battery exception to the waiver of governmental immunity require dismissal of a negligence claim at the pleading stage when the facts alleged in the complaint could support a finding that the student who caused the injury lacked the requisite intent for battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Orme
No. The battery exception to governmental immunity does not require dismissal at the pleading stage when the plaintiff can articulate a plausible scenario, consistent with the complaint, under which the actor lacked the requisite intent for battery. The Governmental Immunity Act of Utah waives immunity for negligence but retains it for injuries arising from a battery. Under Utah law, which adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts, battery requires that the actor either desires to cause a harmful or offensive contact or is 'substantially certain' that such contact will result. At the motion to dismiss stage, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Here, Erickson proposed a plausible scenario where the Student threw the flagpole intending for friends to catch it, not to strike anyone, and was not 'substantially certain' that a harmful contact would occur. This subjective intent is a question of fact for a fact-finder and cannot be resolved on the pleadings. The court distinguished the high standard of 'substantial certainty' from 'substantial likelihood' or 'high risk,' which align more with recklessness or negligence. Because Erickson could potentially prove a set of facts where the Student's actions did not constitute a battery, her negligence claim against the School District may proceed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing the intent element of battery and limits the ability of governmental entities to use the battery immunity exception to secure early dismissal of negligence claims. By distinguishing 'substantial certainty' from mere 'recklessness' or 'high risk,' the court preserved the plaintiff’s right to proceed to discovery to establish the tortfeasor's subjective state of mind. The ruling underscores that subjective intent is a fact-intensive question generally unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss, thereby making it more difficult for government defendants to dispose of such cases at the pleading stage.
