When can governmental entities claim immunity for property inspections? Ilott v. University of Utah Explained

Background and Facts

Linda Ilott attended a football game at the University of Utah as a business invitee. While walking down wooden bleachers, a plank broke beneath her foot, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Ilott sued the University for negligence, and the University moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. The University claimed immunity based on either inadequate inspection of the bleachers or a latent defective condition.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act: (1) whether the University’s examination of its bleachers constituted an “inspection” under section 63-30-10(4), which provides immunity for inadequate inspections, and (2) whether the broken plank represented a “latent defective condition” under section 63-30-10(17). The trial court granted summary judgment based on the inadequate inspection provision.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, drawing crucial distinctions from prior cases Ericksen v. Salt Lake City Corp. and Nixon v. Salt Lake City Corp. The court emphasized that inspection immunity applies to regulatory activities where governmental entities inspect third-party property for code compliance, not maintenance of their own property. The University’s bleacher examination was performed to ensure safety for business invitees—a specific protected class—rather than to enforce third-party compliance with safety codes. This constituted “acts of maintenance rather than acts of inspection.” Regarding the latent defect claim, the court found material factual disputes, including whether the University’s inspection methods were reasonable and whether the overall condition of the bleachers made individual defects patent rather than latent.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for challenging governmental immunity claims. Practitioners should distinguish between true regulatory inspections (immune) and property maintenance activities (not immune under the inspection provision). The decision also reinforces that summary judgment on latent defect immunity requires clear evidence that reasonable inspection would not reveal the defect, and factual disputes about inspection reasonableness must be resolved by a jury.