Can property owners sue cities for failing to remove homeless camps? Barrani v. Salt Lake City Explained

In Barrani v. Salt Lake City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether property owners can sue a municipality for nuisance when the city fails to remove homeless encampments from adjacent public property. The court’s unanimous decision clarifies the scope of Utah’s public duty doctrine and its application to municipal land management decisions.

Background and Facts

Salt Lake City residents and business owners filed public and private nuisance claims against the City, alleging that homeless encampments on city-owned property created dangerous and unsanitary conditions that interfered with their use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The plaintiffs documented various harms including theft, property damage, drug use, and safety concerns. They sought injunctive relief requiring the City to abate the alleged nuisances on public lands.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s public duty doctrine barred the residents’ nuisance claims. The doctrine generally protects government actors from liability for failing to perform duties owed to the public at large. The court also examined whether any special relationship existed between the City and the plaintiffs that would create an exception to the public duty doctrine’s protection.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the public duty doctrine precluded the residents’ claims. The court explained that any actions the City could take to address encampments would stem from its governmental authority, not ordinary landowner responsibilities. Even civil enforcement would ultimately rely on the City’s enforcement powers as a government actor. The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to characterize the City’s duty as that of an ordinary landowner, emphasizing that the fundamental inquiry is whether the government actor’s inaction stems from a public duty.

Regarding the special relationship exception, the court found that merely owning property adjacent to city land does not create a special relationship. Virtually all Salt Lake City residents adjoin city-owned property like sidewalks and parks. The transient nature of encampments further undermined any claim to a definable class of affected individuals.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah’s public duty doctrine provides broad protection to municipal governments in their policy decisions regarding public land management. The ruling clarifies that the 2014 legislative codification of the doctrine at Utah Code § 63G-7-202(5) did not alter existing common law protections. For practitioners challenging government inaction, the decision emphasizes the critical importance of identifying duties owed specifically to individual clients rather than to the public generally.