Can municipal sign ordinances create liability to trespassers beyond common law? Colosimo v. Gateway Community Church Explained

In Colosimo v. Gateway Community Church, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether municipal ordinances can create liability to trespassers that extends beyond common law protections for landowners. The case arose when a teenage trespasser was fatally electrocuted on a church roof due to a defectively wired sign.

Background and facts: Sixteen-year-old A.C. and two cousins climbed over a locked box to access a ladder leading to Gateway Community Church’s roof without permission. While exploring, A.C. was electrocuted when his foot became caught between the ladder and electrified metal flashing. He died ten days later. Post-accident inspections revealed the church’s sign was defectively wired with improper materials and lacked grounding. Although teenagers had accessed the roof on only two prior occasions over fourteen years (in 2004 and 2010), the parents argued the church owed a duty under Draper City’s sign ordinances and common law exceptions for habitual trespassers.

Key legal issues: The court considered whether Gateway owed a duty to the trespasser under municipal sign ordinances requiring permits and safe maintenance, or under common law exceptions to the general rule of non-liability to trespassers found in Restatement sections 334, 335, and 339.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court affirmed summary judgment for the church on both theories. Regarding common law, the court distinguished Lopez v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., noting that two isolated incidents over fourteen years did not establish the habitual trespassing required for exceptions to apply. On the ordinance theory, the court applied strict construction principles, explaining that ordinances creating duties “not recognized by the common law” should be construed most favorably to the defendant. Since Draper’s sign ordinances did not explicitly “extend or modify the common-law rule of the nonliability of landowner to trespassers,” common law defenses remained available.

Practice implications: This decision reinforces that municipal ordinances establishing safety standards do not automatically create expanded liability beyond common law limits unless they explicitly do so. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether ordinances merely establish prima facie evidence of negligence or actually create new duties that override traditional defenses. The court’s strict construction approach suggests that absent clear legislative intent to expand liability, ordinances will be interpreted within existing common law frameworks.