Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes a discretionary function under Utah's Governmental Immunity Act? Trujillo v. UDOT Explained
Summary
Plaintiffs were injured in a head-on collision on I-84 during construction where opposing traffic was separated by plastic barrels. They sued UDOT and general contractor Ball for negligence in designing and implementing the traffic control plan. The trial court granted summary judgment based on UDOT’s discretionary function immunity and Ball’s defense that it followed plans and specifications.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Trujillo v. Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment and clarified when governmental entities can claim discretionary function immunity under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act. This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners challenging governmental liability.
Background and Facts
The Trujillos were injured in a head-on collision on I-84 during highway resurfacing. Construction had reduced the four-lane divided highway to two-lane, two-way operations (TLTWO), with opposing traffic separated only by plastic barrels spaced 100 feet apart. Despite the general contractor’s written concerns about safety, UDOT never revised the traffic control plan. The plan also required speed reduction to 50 mph and accident investigation, but neither was implemented.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether UDOT’s traffic control plan design qualified for discretionary function immunity under Utah Code § 63-30-10(1), and (2) whether Ball could be held liable for implementing allegedly unreasonably dangerous plans.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the established four-part test for discretionary function immunity, emphasizing the distinction between policy-making and operational decisions. Crucially, the court held that immunity requires proof that decisions resulted from “serious and extensive policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise.” UDOT failed to show that an unlicensed staff engineer’s traffic control plan involved policy-level decision-making or that available safety studies were consulted.
Regarding Ball’s liability, the court found material fact questions about whether the traffic control plan was so unreasonably dangerous that a reasonable contractor would refuse to implement it, especially given Ball’s documented safety concerns.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that discretionary function immunity is not automatic for governmental decisions involving some discretion. Practitioners must carefully examine the decision-making process, looking for evidence of policy-level evaluation versus routine operational choices. The case also demonstrates the importance of documentary evidence showing consultation of relevant studies and conscious balancing of competing factors in proving immunity.
Case Details
Case Name
Trujillo v. UDOT
Citation
1999 UT App 227
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 981331-CA
Date Decided
July 22, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
UDOT failed to prove that design and implementation of traffic control plan was a discretionary function warranting governmental immunity, and material fact questions existed regarding Ball’s liability for following allegedly unreasonably dangerous plans.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and application of governing law to material facts
Practice Tip
When challenging governmental immunity, focus discovery on documenting whether decisions involved policy-level evaluation with conscious balancing of risks and advantages rather than operational implementation.
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.