Can private actors qualify as government employees under Utah's immunity act? Mallory v. Brigham Young University Explained

In Mallory v. Brigham Young University, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether private actors can qualify as government employees under the Governmental Immunity Act when performing governmental functions pursuant to municipal ordinances.

Background and Facts: Randall Mallory was injured in a motorcycle accident while leaving a BYU parking lot. A BYU traffic cadet, Sarah Robinson, was directing traffic under supervision of a BYU peace officer pursuant to a Provo City ordinance that permits university employees to direct traffic during large public gatherings. BYU argued it was acting as Provo City’s agent and therefore entitled to governmental immunity. The district court agreed and dismissed Mallory’s claims for failure to file a timely notice of claim with Provo City.

Key Legal Issues: The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether the Governmental Immunity Act’s definition of “Employee” is exclusive to the enumerated categories, and (2) whether BYU defendants qualified as Provo City employees based on the city ordinance governing their traffic control activities.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the word “includes” in the Act’s definition creates a nonexclusive list of employees. The court applied the right to control test, finding that Provo City’s ordinance established sufficient control over BYU’s traffic direction activities to create a master-servant relationship. Key factors included the ordinance’s requirements for supervision by certified peace officers, restrictions on when traffic control could occur, and the city’s retained authority to suspend or terminate the arrangement.

Practice Implications: This decision expands potential immunity coverage to private actors performing governmental functions under statutory or ordinance authority. Practitioners should carefully examine the specific control mechanisms established by governing statutes or ordinances rather than focusing solely on contractual relationships. The decision also reinforces that immunity determinations can be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage when the legal framework is clear from the statutory language.