public duty doctrine in Utah

2013Under the public duty doctrine, the general duty that the government owes to the public does not give rise to a specific duty of care to individuals “unless there is some [special relationship] between the government agency and the individuals that makes it reasonable to impose a duty.”18 ¶26 We have always “taken a policy-based approach in determining whether a special relation should be said to exist and consequently whether a duty is owed.”19 We carefully consider “the consequences of imposing that duty for the parties and for society.”20 And “[w]e are loath to recognize a duty that is real

2013Under the public duty doctrine, the general duty that the government owes to the public does not give rise to a specific duty of care to individuals “unless there is some [special relationship] between the government agency and the individuals that makes it reasonable to impose a duty.”18 ¶26 We have always “taken a policy-based approach in determining whether a special relation should be said to exist and consequently whether a duty is owed.”19 We carefully consider “the consequences of imposing that duty for the parties and for society.”20 And “[w]e are loath to recognize a duty that is real

2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151-52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17-32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612-13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161-62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen.

2014"Conceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity." Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149, 153 (Utah 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 358 , 39 S.Ct. 109 , 63 L.Ed. 291 (1919) ("The fundamental obstacle to recover [under the public duty doctrine] is not the immunity of a sovereign to suit, but the lack of a substantive right to recover the damages resulting from

2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151-52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17-32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612-13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161-62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen.

2014If a plaintiff's negligence claim is based upon a public duty, courts will recognize the duty only if the plaintiff establishes a special relationship that imposes a specific duty of care toward the plaintiff as an individual that is distinguishable from a public duty owed to the general public Madsen, 850 P.2d at 444 . 13 In deciding whether the public duty doctrine prevents Ms. Cope from establishing the necessary duty element of her negligence cause of action, we first examine the issues outlined for supplemental briefing: (1) whether the public duty doctrine should be retained, (2) whether

2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151-52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17-32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612-13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161-62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen.

2014In fact, this court did not adopt the public duty doctrine until several years after the legislature first limited Utah's sovereign immunity in 1965 by passing the Governmental Immunity Act. 1965 Utah Laws 390 -97; Obray v. Malmberg, 26 Utah 2d 17 , 484 P.2d 160, 162 (1971).

2014Day v. State, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 10 , 980 P.2d 1171 (treating the public duty doctrine and sovereign immunity as separate and distinct legal principles); Higgins v. Salt Lake Cnty., 855 P.2d 231, 235 (Utah 1993) (same).

2014Day v. State, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 10 , 980 P.2d 1171 (treating the public duty doctrine and sovereign immunity as separate and distinct legal principles); Higgins v. Salt Lake Cnty., 855 P.2d 231, 235 (Utah 1993) (same).

2025The district court agreed. ¶12 Under the public duty doctrine, “a plaintiff cannot recover for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, but must show that a duty is owed to him or her as an individual.”4 We have made clear that the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against governmental actors that commit affirmative acts, and “applies only to the omissions of a governmental actor” engaged in performing public duties.5 ¶13 Additionally, the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against government actors for injuries “to persons who stand so far apart from t

2025The district court agreed. ¶12 Under the public duty doctrine, “a plaintiff cannot recover for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, but must show that a duty is owed to him or her as an individual.”4 We have made clear that the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against governmental actors that commit affirmative acts, and “applies only to the omissions of a governmental actor” engaged in performing public duties.5 ¶13 Additionally, the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against government actors for injuries “to persons who stand so far apart from t

2025The district court agreed. ¶12 Under the public duty doctrine, “a plaintiff cannot recover for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, but must show that a duty is owed to him or her as an individual.”4 We have made clear that the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against governmental actors that commit affirmative acts, and “applies only to the omissions of a governmental actor” engaged in performing public duties.5 ¶13 Additionally, the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against government actors for injuries “to persons who stand so far apart from t

2025The district court agreed. ¶12 Under the public duty doctrine, “a plaintiff cannot recover for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, but must show that a duty is owed to him or her as an individual.”4 We have made clear that the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against governmental actors that commit affirmative acts, and “applies only to the omissions of a governmental actor” engaged in performing public duties.5 ¶13 Additionally, the public duty doctrine does not preclude tort claims against government actors for injuries “to persons who stand so far apart from t

2018See 2014 UT 53 , ¶ 38, 342 P.3d 243 ("Ballroom dance instruction is not a public duty owed to the general public at large." (quotation simplified) ). ¶ 18 Indeed, in Cope , our supreme court cited with approval a case recognizing that "the public duty doctrine protects police dispatchers 'because such dispatchers do not create the plaintiff's peril.' " Id. ¶ 24 (quoting Fried v. Archer , 139 Md.App. 229 , 775 A.2d 430 , 444 (2001) ).

2018See 2014 UT 53 , ¶ 38, 342 P.3d 243 ("Ballroom dance instruction is not a public duty owed to the general public at large." (quotation simplified) ). ¶ 18 Indeed, in Cope , our supreme court cited with approval a case recognizing that "the public duty doctrine protects police dispatchers 'because such dispatchers do not create the plaintiff's peril.' " Id. ¶ 24 (quoting Fried v. Archer , 139 Md.App. 229 , 775 A.2d 430 , 444 (2001) ).

1999Some courts have also recognized an exception to the public duty rule "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury.” Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983); see also Frye v. Clark County, 97 Nev. 632 , 637 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1981) (noting an exception to the public duty rule “where the official negligence affirmatively causes the individual harm"); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 7-8 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (distinguishing cases involving "negligent performance of police duties” on the ground that those cases “involve[d] acts of affirma

1999Some courts have also recognized an exception to the public duty rule "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury.” Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983); see also Frye v. Clark County, 97 Nev. 632 , 637 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1981) (noting an exception to the public duty rule “where the official negligence affirmatively causes the individual harm"); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 7-8 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (distinguishing cases involving "negligent performance of police duties” on the ground that those cases “involve[d] acts of affirma

2025Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 11 , 980 P.2d 1171 ; (continued . . .) 6 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court A general duty that a governmental entity owes to the public does not create a specific duty to an individual member of the public, unless there is a special relationship between the governmental entity and the individual member of the public. 12 ¶17 Then in our opinion Cope v. Utah Valley State College, issued shortly after the legislature amended the GIA to include this provision, we reaffirmed that the public duty doctrine had not been abrogated.13 We stated in Cope that the legislative a

2025Safety, 1999 UT 46, ¶ 11 , 980 P.2d 1171 ; (continued . . .) 6 Cite as: 2025 UT 25 Opinion of the Court A general duty that a governmental entity owes to the public does not create a specific duty to an individual member of the public, unless there is a special relationship between the governmental entity and the individual member of the public. 12 ¶17 Then in our opinion Cope v. Utah Valley State College, issued shortly after the legislature amended the GIA to include this provision, we reaffirmed that the public duty doctrine had not been abrogated.13 We stated in Cope that the legislative a

2017Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 7 , 275 P.3d 228 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶27 Cope explains, however, that “[a]ctive misfeasance” is not “confined to situations where an affirmative act directly causes ham to the plaintiff’ but extends to situations where defendants “had affirmatively created conditions that gave rise to a duty to act in order to prevent ham.” Cope, 2014 UT 53, ¶ 35 , 342 P.3d 243 .

2017Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11, ¶ 7 , 275 P.3d 228 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶27 Cope explains, however, that “[a]ctive misfeasance” is not “confined to situations where an affirmative act directly causes ham to the plaintiff’ but extends to situations where defendants “had affirmatively created conditions that gave rise to a duty to act in order to prevent ham.” Cope, 2014 UT 53, ¶ 35 , 342 P.3d 243 .

2014E.g., Doucette v. Town of Bristol, 138 N.H. 205 , 635 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1993) ("[The public duty rule impermissibly conflicts with the abrogation of common law municipal immunity. ..."); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Alaska 1976) ("[Wle consider that the [public duty] doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine."). ¶ 15 We disagree with the reasoning of the courts that have abandoned the public duty doctrine.

2014E.g., Doucette v. Town of Bristol, 138 N.H. 205 , 635 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1993) ("[The public duty rule impermissibly conflicts with the abrogation of common law municipal immunity. ..."); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Alaska 1976) ("[Wle consider that the [public duty] doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine."). ¶ 15 We disagree with the reasoning of the courts that have abandoned the public duty doctrine.

1999Id. at 418 . [2] Some courts have also recognized an exception to the public duty rule "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury." Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983); see also Frye v. Clark County, 97 Nev. 632 , 637 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1981) (noting an exception to the public duty rule "where the official negligence affirmatively causes the individual harm"); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 7-8 (D.C.Ct.App.1981) (distinguishing cases involving "negligent performance of police duties" on the ground that those cases "involve[d

1993“Determining whether one party has an affirmative duty to protect another ... requires a careful consideration of the consequences for the parties and society at large.” Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, 418 (Utah 1986); accord Rollins, 813 P.2d at 1160 .

2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Burns, 273 Va. 14 , 639 S.E.2d 276, 279 (2007) (declining to extend the public duty doctrine to include the affirmative acts of a road construction crew in creating a dangerous condition on a public highway); Gleason v. Peters, 568 N.W.2d 482, 487 (S.D.1997) (holding that a police department had no duty to stop a party because it was "undisputed that no affirmative action by the officers contributed to, increased, or changed the risk which would have otherwise existed" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Willis v. Warren Twp.

2014See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Burns, 273 Va. 14 , 639 S.E.2d 276, 279 (2007) (declining to extend the public duty doctrine to include the affirmative acts of a road construction crew in creating a dangerous condition on a public highway); Gleason v. Peters, 568 N.W.2d 482, 487 (S.D.1997) (holding that a police department had no duty to stop a party because it was "undisputed that no affirmative action by the officers contributed to, increased, or changed the risk which would have otherwise existed" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Willis v. Warren Twp.

2014"Conceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity." Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149, 153 (Utah 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 358 , 39 S.Ct. 109 , 63 L.Ed. 291 (1919) ("The fundamental obstacle to recover [under the public duty doctrine] is not the immunity of a sovereign to suit, but the lack of a substantive right to recover the damages resulting from

2014"Conceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity." Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149, 153 (Utah 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 358 , 39 S.Ct. 109 , 63 L.Ed. 291 (1919) ("The fundamental obstacle to recover [under the public duty doctrine] is not the immunity of a sovereign to suit, but the lack of a substantive right to recover the damages resulting from

1991Under both doctrines, the existence of liability depends entirely upon the public status of the defendant." Leake, 720 P.2d at 160 ; see also Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 461 (1983) (Utter, J., concurring in the result) ("The public duty doctrine is in reality merely a not so subtle and limited form of sovereign immunity.").

1991Under both doctrines, the existence of liability depends entirely upon the public status of the defendant.” Leake, 720 P.2d at 160 ; see also Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 461 (1983) (Utter, J., concurring in the result) ("The public duty doctrine is in reality merely a not so subtle and limited form of sovereign immunity.”).

2014Fire Dep't, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("The [public duty] test ... is limited in application to cases in which a government's promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff's losses."); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 108 Nev. 757 , 839 P.2d 97, 99 (1992) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where a public officer's conduct 'affirmatively causes' harm to an individual"); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury"); Jahnke v. Inc. City of Des Moines

2014Fire Dep't, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("The [public duty] test ... is limited in application to cases in which a government's promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff's losses."); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 108 Nev. 757 , 839 P.2d 97, 99 (1992) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where a public officer's conduct 'affirmatively causes' harm to an individual"); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury"); Jahnke v. Inc. City of Des Moines

2014Fire Dep't, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("The [public duty] test ... is limited in application to cases in which a government's promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff's losses."); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 108 Nev. 757 , 839 P.2d 97, 99 (1992) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where a public officer's conduct 'affirmatively causes' harm to an individual"); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury"); Jahnke v. Inc. City of Des Moines

2014Fire Dep’t, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (“The [public duty] test . . . is limited in application to cases in which a government’s promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff’s losses.”); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 839 P.2d 97, 99 (Nev. 1992) (public duty doctrine does 9 COPE v. UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE Opinion of the Court not apply “where a public officer’s conduct ‘affirmatively causes’ harm to an individual”); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 667 P.2d 380, 385 (Kan. 1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply “where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing in

2014Fire Dep't, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("The [public duty] test ... is limited in application to cases in which a government's promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff's losses."); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 108 Nev. 757 , 839 P.2d 97, 99 (1992) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where a public officer's conduct 'affirmatively causes' harm to an individual"); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028 , 667 P.2d 380, 385 (1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply "where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing injury"); Jahnke v. Inc. City of Des Moines

2014Fire Dep’t, 672 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (“The [public duty] test . . . is limited in application to cases in which a government’s promise and subsequent failure to act causes the plaintiff’s losses.”); Coty v. Washoe Cnty., 839 P.2d 97, 99 (Nev. 1992) (public duty doctrine does 9 COPE v. UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE Opinion of the Court not apply “where a public officer’s conduct ‘affirmatively causes’ harm to an individual”); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 667 P.2d 380, 385 (Kan. 1983) (public duty doctrine does not apply “where there is an affirmative act by the officer causing in

2014E.g., Doucette v. Town of Bristol, 138 N.H. 205 , 635 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1993) ("[The public duty rule impermissibly conflicts with the abrogation of common law municipal immunity. ..."); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Alaska 1976) ("[Wle consider that the [public duty] doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine."). ¶ 15 We disagree with the reasoning of the courts that have abandoned the public duty doctrine.

2014E.g., Doucette v. Town of Bristol, 138 N.H. 205 , 635 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1993) ("[The public duty rule impermissibly conflicts with the abrogation of common law municipal immunity. ..."); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Alaska 1976) ("[Wle consider that the [public duty] doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine."). ¶ 15 We disagree with the reasoning of the courts that have abandoned the public duty doctrine.

2014See State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 829 .

2014See State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 829 .

2014The public duty doctrine is not confined, however, to situations where a public employee takes no action whatsoever. "[A] failure to perform [a public duty), or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury. ..." White v. Beasley, 453 Mich. 308 , 552 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1996) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2014The public duty doctrine is not confined, however, to situations where a public employee takes no action whatsoever. "[A] failure to perform [a public duty), or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury. ..." White v. Beasley, 453 Mich. 308 , 552 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1996) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2014The origins of the public duty doctrine can be traced back to South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 396 , 15 L.Ed. 433 (1855).

2014The origins of the public duty doctrine can be traced back to South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 396 , 15 L.Ed. 433 (1855).

2025The public duty doctrine has served the government[] __________________________________________________________ Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848, 852 (Utah 1994); Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149 , 151-52 (Utah 1989), overruled on other grounds by Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 2015 UT 64 , ¶¶ 17-32, 356 P.3d 1172 ; Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 , 612-13 (Utah 1984) (per curiam); Obray, 484 P.2d at 161-62). 12 Public Duty Doctrine Amendments, S.B. 250, 2014 Leg., Gen.

2014In Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, for example, Salt Lake City took various measures to combat extreme flooding. 887 P.2d at 851 .