When does governmental immunity protect private university employees directing traffic? Mallory v. Brigham Young University Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about the scope of governmental immunity in Mallory v. Brigham Young University, clarifying when private entities acting on behalf of government entities can claim protection under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIAU).

Background and Facts

After a BYU football game, Randal Mallory waited on his motorcycle to exit a parking lot when Sarah Robinson, a BYU traffic cadet, directed him to turn left onto University Avenue. Mallory’s motorcycle collided with another vehicle, causing serious injuries. Robinson was directing traffic under a Provo City ordinance that authorized BYU employees to direct post-event traffic on public streets while supervised by university peace officers. BYU and Robinson claimed governmental immunity, arguing they were acting as agents of Provo City and therefore protected by the GIAU’s notice of claim requirements.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined whether the defendants qualified as “Employees” under the GIAU definition, which includes “officers, employees, servants, trustees, or commissioners” but explicitly excludes independent contractors. The central question was whether authorization to perform a governmental function automatically makes the actor an agent entitled to immunity, or whether additional control requirements must be satisfied.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between different types of agents, holding that only those who qualify as “servants” under significant governmental control are entitled to immunity as “Employees.” The court explained that while the GIAU defines “governmental function” to include acts by governmental “agents,” this does not mean all agents receive individual immunity protection. The statute deliberately protects only those agents who are also servants—individuals subject to the governmental entity’s control over the manner of performance. Independent contractors, though they may act as agents in a broad sense, cannot claim immunity under the GIAU.

Practice Implications

The decision was reversed and remanded because the record lacked sufficient evidence about Provo City’s actual control over BYU’s traffic direction activities. The court emphasized that practitioners must examine the specific master-servant relationship factors, including the right to discharge, nature of work, and most importantly, control over means and methods of performance. This ruling provides important guidance for determining when private entities performing governmental functions can claim immunity protection.