Higgins v. Salt Lake County
1993 Utah LEXIS 88, 213 Utah Adv. Rep. 9, 855 P.2d 231 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A psychotherapist has a duty to protect a third party from a patient only when the defendant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the patient was likely to harm a reasonably identifiable victim. However, under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, a government entity is immune from suit for injuries arising out of an assault or battery, even if the entity's negligence allowed the attack to occur and the assailant is not a government employee.
Facts:
- Carolyn Trujillo, diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of violence and institutionalization, was a voluntary patient at Salt Lake County Mental Health (SLCMH).
- In 1981, following an assault charge, Trujillo was ordered as a condition of probation to enter a residential mental health program at Salt Lake County's Adult Residential Treatment Unit (ARTU).
- In early 1983, Trujillo's probation was terminated after she complied with its conditions.
- In February 1984, after a suicide attempt, Trujillo sought hospitalization but was denied admission due to a bed shortage and was instead referred back to ARTU.
- Trujillo was discharged from the residential program at ARTU on March 14, 1984, and placed in a less intensive evening/weekend program; her last contact with her therapist was on March 21.
- On April 10, 1984, Trujillo, stating she heard voices telling her to 'stab someone,' left her home with a knife.
- Trujillo saw her ten-year-old neighbor, Shaundra Higgins, in an alley, called out to her, and then stabbed her three times, causing severe injuries.
- Although Trujillo told police she intended to stab 'just anybody,' she later told a psychiatrist she believed Shaundra had hit her daughter and that she hated Shaundra's mother, Kathy Lynn Higgins.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathy Lynn Higgins, individually and as guardian for her daughter Shaundra, sued Salt Lake County, the University of Utah, and several of their employees in a Utah state trial court.
- Higgins alleged negligence in the defendants' diagnosis, treatment, and supervision of Carolyn Trujillo.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to the Higginses.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that they owed no duty of care.
- Higgins, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Utah.
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 Utah Governmental Immunity Act bar a negligence claim against a government-run mental health facility for injuries arising from an assault by a patient on a third party, where the facility's alleged negligence was in its treatment and supervision of the patient?
Opinions:
Majority - Zimmerman, Justice
Yes, the Utah Governmental Immunity Act bars a negligence claim against a government-run mental health facility for injuries arising from an assault by a patient on a third party, even if the facility was negligent. The court first analyzed whether the defendants owed a duty to the Higginses. It rejected a general duty to the public and instead applied a special relationship test, holding that a duty to protect a third party arises when a therapist knew or should have known that a patient presented a likely danger of bodily harm to a 'reasonably identifiable' victim. Although Trujillo never communicated a specific threat, the court found that Higgins's allegation that proper professional care would have revealed the threat was sufficient to create a factual issue on the existence of a duty. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on the alternative ground of governmental immunity. The Utah Governmental Immunity Act waives immunity for negligence but retains it for injuries that 'arise out of assault [or] battery.' The court held this exception applies regardless of whether the person committing the assault is a government employee. Because Shaundra Higgins's injuries arose from Trujillo's battery, the government entity defendants are immune from suit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two distinct legal principles in Utah. First, it adopts a standard for psychotherapist liability similar to the Tarasoff rule, establishing that a duty to a third party can arise not only from a patient's explicit threat but also from facts a therapist should have discovered through competent practice. More significantly, however, the ruling broadly interprets the 'assault and battery' exception to governmental immunity. This interpretation creates a formidable shield for government entities, preventing liability for negligence whenever the final causal link in an injury is a third party's intentional tort, thereby limiting the avenues for recovery against state actors who fail to control dangerous individuals.
