Does governmental immunity protect school districts from negligent hiring claims when teachers commit battery? Larsen v. Davis County School District Explained

In Larsen v. Davis County School District, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a school district could claim governmental immunity when sued for negligent hiring and supervision after a teacher engaged in sexual misconduct with a student. The case demonstrates how Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act operates when multiple causes contribute to a plaintiff’s injuries.

Background and Facts

David Larsen, a sixteen-year-old student at Davis High School, alleged that his teacher initiated a romantic relationship with him in 2013. The relationship allegedly began with flirtatious conversations and text messages, eventually escalating to sexual intercourse both on and off school grounds during school hours. Larsen sued Davis County School District, claiming the district negligently hired, supervised, and retained the teacher despite knowing or having reason to know about her history of sexual misconduct with students.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the district’s governmental immunity was waived under the negligence exception or reinstated under the assault and battery exception. Utah Code section 63G-7-301(4) waives immunity for negligent acts, but subsection (5) reinstates immunity when injuries “arise out of, in connection with, or result from” assault or battery. The court had to determine whether the teacher’s sexual contact constituted battery and whether that battery was a proximate cause of Larsen’s injuries.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding that the teacher’s conduct constituted battery because Utah law prohibits minors from consenting to sexual contact with adult teachers. Relying on Barneck v. Utah Department of Transportation, the court explained that immunity is reinstated when an immunity-invoking condition is “a proximate cause” of the plaintiff’s injuries, not necessarily the sole cause. The court rejected Larsen’s attempt to separate his damages into categories caused by physical versus non-physical interactions, noting that he had pleaded only one set of damages in his complaint.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act provides broad protection to governmental entities when immunity-invoking conditions contribute to injuries. Practitioners challenging immunity must carefully analyze whether any conduct listed in section 63G-7-301(5) proximately caused their client’s harm. The court’s rejection of damage-splitting approaches also demonstrates that creative pleading cannot circumvent immunity protections when immune conduct proximately causes any portion of the claimed injuries.