When can courts grant summary judgment in gross negligence cases? Penunuri v. Sundance Partners Explained

In Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when trial courts may appropriately grant summary judgment in gross negligence cases, rejecting arguments that such motions are categorically inappropriate when the standard of care is not “fixed by law.”

Background and Facts

Lisa Penunuri suffered injuries when she fell from her horse during a guided trail ride at Sundance Resort. During the ride, gaps formed between horses when some horses stopped to graze. The trail guide decided to address these gaps after the group passed hikers and reached a clearing, but Penunuri fell before they arrived at that location. After a prior appeal upheld dismissal of ordinary negligence claims based on a liability release, plaintiffs pursued their remaining gross negligence claim on remand.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the gross negligence claim. Plaintiffs argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because the standard of care for managing gaps between horses was not “fixed by law,” relying on language from Berry v. Greater Park City Co. that summary judgment is inappropriate unless the standard of care is fixed by law “and” reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion about negligence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the Berry test should be read disjunctively rather than conjunctively. Following the Utah Supreme Court’s approach in Blaisdell v. Dentrix Dental Systems, the court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when reasonable minds could not differ as to whether the defendant acted with gross negligence, even when the standard of care is not fixed by law. The court emphasized that gross negligence requires proof of “utter indifference to consequences” and conduct “substantially more distant from the appropriate standard of care than ordinary negligence.” Here, undisputed evidence showed the guide exercised at least slight care by giving instructions, slowing down throughout the ride, and planning to address the gaps at an appropriate location.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for Utah practitioners handling negligence cases. Courts may grant summary judgment in gross negligence cases when undisputed facts show the defendant observed at least slight care, regardless of whether the applicable standard of care is “fixed by law.” Practitioners must ensure their evidence demonstrates conduct substantially more egregious than ordinary negligence—showing mere breach of a standard of care, even one established by internal policies, is insufficient for gross negligence claims.