Does the licensing exception protect UDOT from construction zone accident claims? Winkler v. Lemieux Explained

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.