Wright v. University of Utah
1994 Utah App. LEXIS 70, 876 P.2d 380, 238 Utah Adv. Rep. 18 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, a government entity is immune from suit for injuries arising out of an employee's assault or battery, regardless of whether the plaintiff's claim is framed as negligent hiring or supervision, as the court focuses on the underlying conduct that caused the injury, not the plaintiff's theory of liability.
Facts:
- Clare N. Wright was on the premises of the University of Utah.
- An employee of the University of Utah assaulted and struck Wright, causing her to suffer injuries.
- Wright alleged that the University knew its employee had a 'known propensity for violence' before the incident occurred.
- In her formal complaint, Wright described the incident by stating the employee had 'assaulted and struck' her.
Procedural Posture:
- Clare N. Wright filed a complaint against the University of Utah and the State of Utah in a state trial court.
- Before filing an answer, the University filed a 'Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings' seeking dismissal, which the appellate court analyzed as a Motion to Dismiss.
- The trial court granted the University's motion and dismissed Wright's complaint with prejudice.
- Wright, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Utah Court of Appeals, with the University as 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 Utah Governmental Immunity Act's provision granting immunity for injuries 'arising out of... assault [or] battery' bar a claim against a government entity when the plaintiff frames the lawsuit as negligent hiring and supervision, rather than as a direct claim for the employee's assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Judge
Yes. The Utah Governmental Immunity Act bars a claim framed as negligent hiring or supervision when the injury factually arises from an assault or battery. The court must focus on the underlying conduct or situation out of which the injury arose, not on the theory of liability crafted by the plaintiff. Citing Ledfors v. Emery County School District, the court held that plaintiffs cannot evade statutory immunity for intentional torts by re-characterizing the claim as one for negligence. The court also rejected Wright's argument that the employee may have lacked the requisite intent for assault, as her complaint specifically alleged she was 'assaulted and struck,' which implies an intentional act. Furthermore, even if Wright had properly amended her complaint to allege a lack of intent, the claim would likely be futile; drawing on federal precedent interpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court reasoned that governmental immunity for assaults applies regardless of the assailant's mental state, as the focus is on the factual situation of a 'deliberate attack,' not the employee's culpability.
Dissenting - Billings, Presiding Judge
No. The trial court erred in dismissing the claim because, under the liberal standards of notice pleading, the complaint allows for a reasonable inference of a negligence claim that would not be barred by immunity. The phrase 'assaulted and struck' should not be read as a single, redundant allegation of an intentional tort. Instead, it can and should be read to advance two separate theories: an intentional assault and a negligent striking. At such an early stage of litigation, the court should indulge all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor and allow her the opportunity to develop her theory that the University is liable for an unintentional, negligent striking by its employee, which would fall outside the Act's assault and battery exception.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the strength of governmental immunity in Utah for intentional torts committed by employees. It establishes that courts will look past the plaintiff's 'artful pleading' to the substantive cause of the injury. By prioritizing the factual origin of the harm (the assault) over the legal theory presented (negligent supervision), the ruling creates a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold government entities accountable for the violent acts of their employees. The case also serves as a crucial lesson in civil procedure, highlighting that a failure to properly and timely amend a complaint can be fatal to a potentially viable claim, as courts will not construct causes of action that a plaintiff failed to plead.
