Do Utah gun owners owe a duty of care when supplying firearms to impaired individuals? Herland v. Izatt Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Herland v. Izatt establishes a significant new duty for gun owners when providing firearms to impaired individuals. This case addresses whether gun owners have a tort duty to exercise reasonable care when supplying firearms to intoxicated or incompetent persons.

Background and facts: Neely Creager attended a party at Travis Izatt’s home, where she became severely intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of 0.25. During the evening, she gained possession of Izatt’s loaded handgun and accidentally shot herself in the head, resulting in her death. The parties disputed how she obtained the weapon—whether Izatt left it accessible on a counter, whether he opened his gun safe and allowed her to handle it, or whether she retrieved it after he locked the safe. Creager’s estate sued Izatt for negligence, alleging he was negligent in allowing her access to his loaded handgun while severely intoxicated.

Key legal issues: The primary issue was whether a gun owner owes a duty of care to an intoxicated individual who gains access to the owner’s firearm. The court applied the five-factor test from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West to analyze duty: (1) whether the conduct was an affirmative act or omission; (2) the legal relationship of the parties; (3) foreseeability of injury; (4) public policy regarding which party can best bear the loss; and (5) other policy considerations.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Utah Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and held that gun owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care in supplying firearms to children and incompetent or impaired individuals. The court found that four of the five Jeffs factors supported imposing a duty, with a factual dispute regarding the fifth factor (act versus omission). The court emphasized that supplying an intoxicated individual with a gun creates a foreseeable risk of harm, similar to supplying a vehicle to an intoxicated person. The court also noted that Utah’s legislative framework restricts firearm possession by incompetent persons and prohibits carrying firearms while intoxicated.

Practice implications: This decision significantly expands potential liability for gun owners in Utah. However, the court emphasized that establishing a duty does not guarantee liability—plaintiffs must still prove breach and proximate cause. Importantly, under Utah’s comparative negligence framework, intoxicated plaintiffs face substantial challenges in recovery, as their own negligence may exceed fifty percent and bar recovery. The decision also clarifies that the distinction between affirmative acts and omissions remains critical in duty analysis for firearms cases.