Can Utah's recreational landowner statute bar wrongful death claims? Feldman v. Salt Lake City Explained

In Feldman v. Salt Lake City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah’s Limitations on Landowner Liability Act can bar wrongful death claims when a person dies while engaging in recreational activities on public land.

Background and Facts

Liudmila Feldman tragically drowned in a creek at Parley’s Historic Nature Park while attempting to rescue her dogs that had entered the water. Her husband and children brought wrongful death claims against Salt Lake City, alleging the dangerous current resulted from manmade developments at the East Creek Access area. The City moved to dismiss under section 401 of Utah’s Limitations on Landowner Liability Act, which bars claims for personal injury caused by inherent risks of participating in recreational activities on land opened to the public without charge.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether the Act applies to wrongful death claims; (2) whether such application violates Utah’s constitutional Wrongful Death Clause; and (3) whether the Feldmans sufficiently alleged that Ms. Feldman’s death was not caused by inherent risks of entering the creek.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that section 401 can bar wrongful death claims because such claims are semi-derivative of the underlying personal injury claim. If the statute would have barred Ms. Feldman’s personal injury claim had she survived, it can also bar the family’s wrongful death claims. The court found this does not violate the Wrongful Death Clause because the statute provides a reasonable defense that goes to the viability of the underlying personal injury action, similar to other defenses like comparative negligence or statutes of limitations.

However, the court reversed the dismissal, finding the Feldmans adequately alleged that the dangerous current was not an integral and natural part of entering the creek. The court explained that whether a risk is “inherent” depends on whether it would be expected in the given setting, and this factual question cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that recreational liability statutes can apply to wrongful death claims when they would bar the decedent’s underlying tort claim. Practitioners defending such cases should focus on whether alleged dangers are expected or integral to the specific recreational activity. When challenging dismissal, plaintiffs should include detailed factual allegations showing that conditions creating the danger were unexpected in the recreational setting and potentially caused by artificial modifications rather than natural conditions inherent to the activity.