Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's professional rescuer rule apply to gross negligence? Ipsen v. Diamond Tree Experts Explained
Summary
David Scott Ipsen, a firefighter, sued Diamond Tree Experts after suffering smoke inhalation injuries while responding to a mulch fire at defendant’s property that violated fire codes and safety standards. The district court granted summary judgment for Diamond Tree under the professional rescuer rule established in Fordham v. Oldroyd, dismissing Ipsen’s gross negligence claims.
Analysis
In a significant clarification of Utah tort law, the Utah Supreme Court in Ipsen v. Diamond Tree Experts refined the scope of the professional rescuer rule, holding that defendants owe a duty of care to professional rescuers when the defendants’ gross negligence or intentional torts cause the rescuer’s presence and injury.
Background and Facts
David Scott Ipsen, a firefighter, responded to a mulch fire at Diamond Tree Experts’ property. The defendant had been warned about unsafe mulch storage practices and was in knowing violation of fire codes and industry standards when the fire occurred. While working away from the fire, Ipsen was engulfed by smoke and embers, causing severe injuries that ended his firefighting career. He sued for gross negligence, intentional harm, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Utah’s professional rescuer rule from Fordham v. Oldroyd extends beyond ordinary negligence to bar claims based on gross negligence or intentional conduct. The rule traditionally provides that defendants owe no duty to professional rescuers for injuries sustained by “the very negligence that occasioned the rescuer’s presence and that was within the scope of hazards inherent in the rescuer’s duties.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished between ordinary negligence and gross negligence based on culpability and deterrence considerations. While ordinary negligence involves mere “inattention,” gross negligence constitutes “carelessness or recklessness to a degree that shows utter indifference to the consequences.” The court reasoned that the policy rationales supporting the professional rescuer rule—protecting those who act negligently from liability—do not extend to actors with such heightened culpability. The court rejected concerns that this distinction would be difficult to apply, noting that Utah courts regularly distinguish between negligence and gross negligence in summary judgment proceedings.
Practice Implications
This decision creates new opportunities for professional rescuer plaintiffs while maintaining the Fordham rule’s core protection for ordinary negligence. Practitioners representing rescuers should carefully develop factual records supporting gross negligence allegations, including evidence of statutory violations, industry standard breaches, and reckless indifference to safety. Defense counsel should focus on demonstrating that challenged conduct constitutes only ordinary negligence to maintain professional rescuer rule protections.
Case Details
Case Name
Ipsen v. Diamond Tree Experts
Citation
2020 UT 30
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20181052
Date Decided
May 20, 2020
Outcome
Reversed in part and Remanded
Holding
The professional rescuer rule does not apply to cases of gross negligence or intentional torts, as persons owe a duty of care to professional rescuers for injuries sustained by such conduct.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment orders and questions of law
Practice Tip
When representing professional rescuers, focus on demonstrating gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence to avoid the professional rescuer rule’s duty limitation established in Fordham.
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.