Utah Supreme Court
Does discretionary function immunity protect municipal sidewalk repair decisions? Kerr v. Salt Lake City Explained
Summary
Alexander Kerr injured himself when he tripped on a sidewalk defect in Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City received notice of the defect eight days before the accident but chose to provide a repair estimate to the adjacent business rather than directly remedy the condition. After a complex procedural history involving directed verdicts and a new trial, a jury returned a verdict for Kerr.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Kerr v. Salt Lake City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a city’s decision regarding sidewalk repairs qualifies for discretionary function immunity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
Background and Facts
Alexander Kerr tripped on an uneven sidewalk section maintained by Salt Lake City, suffering a shattered kneecap. The sidewalk displacement ranged from three-quarters of an inch to one inch in height. Eight days before the accident, Salt Lake City received notice of the defect from an employee at the adjacent Metropolitan Inn. The city inspected the condition and provided a repair estimate of $546 to the business, but took no direct remedial action. The accident occurred the day after the estimate was generated.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Salt Lake City’s decision not to remedy the sidewalk defect constituted a discretionary function under Utah Code § 63G-7-301(5)(a), which would restore the city’s immunity despite the general waiver for defective sidewalk conditions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the four-part Little test to determine discretionary function immunity. While the first and fourth factors were satisfied (basic governmental policy and requisite authority), the court found the second and third factors answered in the negative. The city’s decision was not essential to accomplishing its sidewalk maintenance program, nor did it require basic policy evaluation. Instead, the decision was operational in nature—implementing existing policies that already provided multiple repair options, including horizontal saw cutting for displacements under 1.5 inches. The court emphasized that accepting the city’s broad immunity argument would completely negate the statute’s explicit waiver for defective sidewalk conditions.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the narrow application of discretionary function immunity. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between high-level policy decisions and operational choices implementing existing policies. The court’s analysis demonstrates that resource allocation alone does not transform operational decisions into discretionary functions. Additionally, the decision clarifies appellate review standards for denied summary judgment motions based on factual disputes and establishes that new trial orders entered before jury verdicts may not be reviewable on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Kerr v. Salt Lake City
Citation
2013 UT 75
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20110909
Date Decided
December 17, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A city’s decision not to remedy a specific sidewalk defect is an operational decision implementing existing policy rather than a discretionary policy function, and therefore does not qualify for governmental immunity.
Standard of Review
Correctness for trial court’s denial of summary judgment based on purely legal determination; correctness for party’s entitlement to discretionary function immunity as a question of law; competent evidence standard for denial of directed verdict
Practice Tip
When asserting discretionary function immunity, ensure the challenged decision involves high-level policy-making rather than operational implementation of existing policies, as all four Little test factors must be satisfied affirmatively.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.