Must preinjury releases use specific language to waive negligence claims? Cunningham v. Weber County Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham v. Weber County provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling cases involving preinjury releases and governmental immunity. The case arose when firefighter Brian Cunningham was severely injured during SWAT training conducted by Weber County, suffering significant facial and neck injuries when an explosive device sent shrapnel into his face.

Background and Facts

Cunningham was required to sign a release before participating in the SWAT training. The document stated he would “unconditionally and irrevocably release and discharge the Ogden Metro SWATT Team and all related organizations and entities from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions and causes of action arising, whether directly or indirectly, from or in connection with [his] attending or participating in the described SWAT training.” When Cunningham was injured due to allegedly negligent placement near an explosive device, he and his wife sued Weber County for negligence, gross negligence, and loss of consortium.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three critical issues: whether the preinjury release was enforceable under Utah’s clear and unmistakable standard, whether the Governmental Immunity Act waives immunity for gross negligence claims, and whether the Act covers loss of consortium claims related to covered injuries.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all issues. Regarding the release, the Court emphasized that Utah law “disfavors preinjury releases” and requires them to “make [their] intent clear and unmistakable.” The release’s broad, general language failed this test because it did not specifically reference negligence or provide clear context that would put a party on notice they were waiving negligence claims. On the immunity issues, the Court held that gross negligence “differs from ordinary negligence only in degree, and not in kind,” making it covered under the Act’s waiver for “negligent acts.” Similarly, loss of consortium claims are covered when they arise from injuries for which immunity has been waived.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts how practitioners draft and challenge preinjury releases. Releases using only broad language without specific reference to negligence or clear contextual indicators are vulnerable to challenge. The decision also clarifies that Utah’s governmental immunity statute provides broader coverage than some practitioners may have realized, encompassing both gross negligence and derivative claims like loss of consortium.