When does Utah's assault and battery exception protect government agencies from liability? Sanders v. Leavitt Explained

In Sanders v. Leavitt, the Utah Supreme Court addressed several immunity doctrines that protect government entities and officials from civil liability. The case arose from the tragic death of nine-month-old Breanna Marie Loveless, who died from pneumonia allegedly caused by physical abuse.

Background and Facts
Plaintiff sued eighteen defendants, including state officials, DCFS, attorneys who represented a class action, and a court-appointed monitoring panel. The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed in their duty to protect Breanna from abuse by her mother and stepfather. The trial court dismissed most defendants on various grounds, leaving only DCFS, which was later dismissed on summary judgment based on governmental immunity.

Key Legal Issues
The court examined three distinct immunity doctrines: (1) whether failure to file required notice of claim under Utah Code section 63-30-12 barred claims against state defendants; (2) whether monitoring panel members were entitled to judicial immunity; (3) whether attorney defendants owed duties to class members beyond traditional representation; and (4) whether DCFS was protected by the assault and battery exception to governmental immunity waiver.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Ledfors framework for governmental immunity analysis. State defendants were properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to provide required notice of claim. The monitoring panel received absolute judicial immunity because it performed quasi-judicial functions under federal court supervision. Attorney defendants owed no duty to protect class members from third-party physical harm. Most significantly, DCFS was immune because Breanna’s death “arose out of” assault and battery under Utah Code section 63-30-10(1)(b), regardless of who committed the assault.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces Utah’s broad interpretation of the assault and battery exception to governmental immunity. When any injury “arises out of” assault or battery, governmental immunity is retained even if the assault was committed by third parties and the government’s only fault was negligence in supervision or protection. Justice Durham’s concurrence noted this creates “unfairness and inconsistency” and urged legislative reform. The court also awarded attorney fees against plaintiff’s counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal regarding the attorney defendants.