When do custodians owe duties to prevent harm by dangerous individuals? Scott v. Universal Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Universal significantly altered the landscape of custodian liability in Utah while reaffirming the scope of governmental immunity for core governmental functions.

Background and Facts

Utah County operated a “Jail Industries” program allowing inmates to work for private businesses in the community. The County placed inmate Shawn Michael Leonard with Universal Industrial Sales despite his extensive criminal history and potential for violent behavior toward young women. Leonard escaped from the work site and brutally attacked Mika Scott on the Provo River Trail, causing severe physical injuries and permanent disabilities. Scott sued the County, alleging negligent screening and supervision.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two critical questions: (1) whether the County owed Scott a duty of care under Utah’s existing precedent requiring knowledge of specific threats, and (2) whether the Governmental Immunity Act violated the open courts clause by eliminating viable tort claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court overruled the Rollins rule, which required custodians to know of threats to specific individuals or discrete groups. Instead, the Court adopted section 319 of the Second Restatement of Torts, imposing a duty when custodians “know or should know” that an individual is “likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled.” The Court applied the five-factor duty analysis from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, finding each factor supported imposing a duty on the County.

However, the Court affirmed dismissal based on governmental immunity. Under the Standiford test, work-release programs constitute activities “essential to the core of governmental activity”—specifically, housing and rehabilitating inmates. Because this activity would have been immune even before the 1987 expansion of governmental immunity, the Act’s application did not violate the open courts clause.

Practice Implications

This decision dramatically expands potential liability for private custodians of dangerous individuals while preserving immunity for governmental entities performing core functions. Private hospitals, treatment facilities, and employers must now assess whether they “should know” of general dangerousness rather than specific threats. The Standiford test remains the benchmark for determining whether governmental immunity expansions violate constitutional remedies guarantees.