Does installing water infrastructure for fire protection qualify as fire-fighting activity under Utah's Governmental Immunity Act? Wilkinson v. Washington City Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a municipality’s installation of water infrastructure to increase fire hydrant pressure constitutes fire-fighting activity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act in Wilkinson v. Washington City.

Background and Facts

Washington City was required by state regulation to maintain minimum 20 psi water pressure at all points in its distribution system for fire protection. Due to surging population and hilly terrain, the Majestic View subdivision experienced inadequate water pressure, especially during peak hours. To remedy this deficiency, the city engineered and constructed a new Southern Transmission line specifically “for the purpose of providing sufficient fire flows and fire protection to the higher elevations.” The increased water pressure allegedly caused significant damage to the Wilkinsons’ homes and personal property.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the city’s actions in increasing water pressure to fire hydrants constituted “activities of fighting fire” under Utah Code section 63-30-10(18)(b), which provides an exception to the general waiver of governmental immunity for negligent acts. The court applied traditional statutory interpretation principles, examining the plain language of “activity” and “fighting fire” to determine legislative intent.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the city. The court defined “activity” as including “function or duties” of an organizational unit, and “fight” as meaning “to strive to overcome” or “attempt to prevent.” Applying these definitions, the court concluded that providing adequate water supply to fire hydrants constitutes fire-fighting activity because it serves the function of “striving to overcome” fire and related damage. The court found persuasive a Texas case holding that “ensuring that an adequate amount of water is available to fire hydrants is necessarily connected to providing fire protection.”

Practice Implications

This decision broadly interprets fire-fighting activities to include preparatory infrastructure work, not just active emergency response. Practitioners challenging governmental immunity must ensure factual disputes are properly preserved through admissible evidence. The court declined to consider an expert affidavit that was struck by the trial court because the ruling striking it was not appealed, and deposition testimony from a “sister case” that wasn’t properly before the district court.