Utah Supreme Court
When do Utah landowners owe duties to trespassers? Colosimo v. Gateway Cmty. Church Explained
Summary
A sixteen-year-old boy died from electrocution while trespassing on a church’s roof due to faulty wiring of a sign. His parents sued for negligence under common law and a city sign ordinance. The district court granted summary judgment for the church, finding no duty owed to trespassers.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Colosimo v. Gateway Cmty. Church provides crucial guidance for practitioners on landowner liability to trespassers and the interaction between municipal ordinances and tort duties.
Background and Facts
A sixteen-year-old boy died from electrocution while trespassing on a church’s roof with friends. The roof’s metal flashing had become electrified due to faulty wiring of an improperly installed sign. The boy’s parents brought a wrongful death suit against the church, claiming breach of duty under both common law and a Draper City sign ordinance requiring proper sign installation and maintenance.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary questions: whether the church owed a duty to the trespasser under common law exceptions in Restatement sections 334, 335, and 339, and whether the municipal sign ordinance created an independent tort duty. The parents argued the church knew of constant trespassing and should have known of the dangerous condition.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the church on both grounds. For common law liability, the court emphasized that sections 334 and 335 require evidence that trespassers “constantly intrude” upon the specific area. Two instances of known roof trespassing over a decade were insufficient to establish constant trespassing. Under section 339’s attractive nuisance doctrine, the church lacked knowledge of the electrified flashing’s dangerous condition.
Regarding the ordinance, the court applied Restatement section 286 analysis, finding that ordinances protecting the “general public” do not create tort duties to specific classes like trespassers unless clearly intended. The ordinance’s language showed no intent to protect trespassers from the type of harm that occurred.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important precedent for premises liability cases involving trespassers. Practitioners must distinguish between isolated trespassing incidents and the “constant and persistent” intrusion required under Restatement sections 334 and 335. The case also clarifies that municipal ordinances will not automatically expand landowner duties beyond common law limits without express legislative intent to protect the specific class of plaintiffs.
Case Details
Case Name
Colosimo v. Gateway Cmty. Church
Citation
2018 UT 26
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160838
Date Decided
June 26, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A landowner owes no duty to trespassers under common law or municipal ordinance absent evidence of constant trespassing or knowledge of dangerous conditions, and ordinances protecting the general public do not create tort duties to specific classes like trespassers unless expressly intended.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and whether a duty exists
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment on trespasser liability, ensure you have evidence of constant and persistent trespassing on the specific area where the dangerous condition exists, not just isolated incidents over many years.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.