Utah Court of Appeals
Does the licensing exception protect UDOT from construction zone accident claims? Winkler v. Lemieux Explained
Summary
Plaintiff was injured in a head-on collision in a UDOT construction zone after a flagger allowed opposing traffic to use the same lane. The district court dismissed UDOT under the licensing exception to the Governmental Immunity Act, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that the flagger’s signal constituted a formal authorization.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about governmental immunity in construction zone accidents in Winkler v. Lemieux, clarifying when the licensing exception to the Governmental Immunity Act applies to UDOT’s traffic control decisions.
Background and Facts
Shelby Winkler was driving through a UDOT construction zone in Little Cottonwood Canyon where traffic was limited to one lane with alternating eastbound and westbound access. A UDOT flagger initially stopped Winkler, then signaled her to proceed east through the work zone. While traversing the zone, she collided head-on with a westbound vehicle. Winkler sued UDOT for negligence, but the district court dismissed the claim, ruling that UDOT was protected under the licensing exception to the waiver of governmental immunity.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the flagger’s signal constituted an “authorization” under the licensing exception, which protects governmental entities from liability for “the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization.” The court applied the two-part test from Thayer v. Washington County School District, examining whether UDOT had regulatory authority to issue such authorization and whether the authorization was formal and official.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals found that UDOT possessed statutory authority under Utah Code Section 72-6-114(1) to “close or restrict travel on a highway under their jurisdiction due to construction.” However, the court determined the record was insufficient to establish formality. Unlike formal licensing decisions, the flagger’s signal lacked the institutional procedures and official character required for the licensing exception to apply.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of developing a complete factual record when governmental immunity is at issue. Practitioners should investigate whether challenged government actions involve formal procedures, institutional protocols, or official documentation that might distinguish them from informal field decisions. The ruling suggests that routine traffic control decisions by flaggers may not receive the same immunity protection as formal licensing or permitting decisions.
Case Details
Case Name
Winkler v. Lemieux
Citation
2014 UT App 141
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130130-CA
Date Decided
June 19, 2014
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The licensing exception to the Governmental Immunity Act does not apply to UDOT’s flagger signals because the record failed to establish that the signal was a formal, official authorization despite UDOT having regulatory authority.
Standard of Review
correctness for questions of law regarding governmental immunity
Practice Tip
When challenging governmental immunity under the licensing exception, develop a complete factual record regarding the formality and institutional procedures surrounding the alleged authorization to avoid dismissal on incomplete records.
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.