2007 Case Summaries
Publication year | 2008 |
Pages | 1 |
Vol. 21, No. 3, 1. 2007 Case Summaries
Utah Bar Journal
Vol. 21, No. 3
May/June 2008
Vol. 21, No. 3
May/June 2008
2007 Case Summaries
2007 Case Summaries
Presented by Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins
and Judge Carolyn McHugh
Editor's Note: Supreme Court
Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins and Court of
Appeals Judge Carolyn B. McHugh addressed some of last
year's important Utah appellate decisions at a Salt Lake
County Bar luncheon on January 31, 2008. Although the
information will be of more limited utility for those not in
attendance, the Utah Bar Journal thought its readers
might find the case summaries, distributed as handouts during
the presentations, to be of interest. Accordingly, the
handouts are reprinted here, with the speakers'
permission. Especially because readers will not have the
benefit of the commentary provided by the speakers, readers
are cautioned that the summaries should not be relied on for
any purposes other than calling attention to these opinions
and explaining what each case generally involves.
Supreme Court of Utah 2007 Decisions
Total Number of Cases............................99
Civil.......................................................41
Criminal.................................................30
Administrative..........................................6
Procedural...............................................8
Family Law..............................................4
Professional Misconduct...........................3
Affirmed or Affirmed in Part.......................52
Reversed or Vacated................................30
CIVIL CASES1
Pratt v. Nelson, 2007 UT 41, 1164
P.3d 366 (Remanded) MBD*2 When the defendant was 16 years
old, her father allegedly forced her to marry her uncle. She
subsequently filed suit against plaintiffs and others
alleging that they had ties with a polygamous organization
and that they were negligent and had assisted, encouraged
conspired, or knew of and failed to prevent or report, the
abuses alleged to have been committed by her father and
uncle. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant, alleging that
she had defamed plaintiffs at a press conference and through
the resulting publicity. The court held that through
excessive publication, the defendant's statements lost
any immunity they might have otherwise enjoyed under the
judicial proceeding privilege. The court also held that the
group defamation rule did not preclude plaintiffs'
defamation claim
Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd.,
2007 UT 65, 167 P.3d 1063 (Reversed and Remanded) REN* The
court held that the "expert testimony" exception to
Utah's medical licensing statutes allowed experts who
were licensed to practice medicine in other states but not in
Utah to conduct pre-testimony medical evaluations in
preparation for their forthcoming testimony as expert
witnesses. While the doctor undoubtedly practiced medicine in
Utah without a license when he held himself out as a
physician, he performed those "practices or acts"
as "an individual providing expert testimony in a legal
proceeding" and thus did not violate the Act.
Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop,
2007 UT 25, 156 P.3d 806 (Affirmed) JNP* Two brothers alleged
that their former teacher, who was also their priest,
sexually abused them on repeated occasions from approximately
1970 to 1975. In 2002, they filed suit, alleging that
defendants knew that the teacher had sexually abused children
but deliberately concealed it from them to protect their own
interests. In affirming the dismissal of the brothers'
action, the court held that the students' action was
barred by the one to four years' statute of limitations
provided by Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3), 78-12-26(3),
78-12-29(4) (2002). The discovery rule provided in section
-26(3) did not apply because the students knew that they had
been abused by the teacher and that the teacher was employed
by defendants; this knowledge was sufficient to trigger a
duty to inquire into claims against defendants.
Munson v. Chamberlain, 2007 UT 91,
2007 Utah LEXIS 199 (Reversed and Remanded) JNP* Defendants
argued that a notice of intent and opinion letter submitted
to a pre-litigation panel were transformed into confidential
documents by virtue of being presented to the panel. The
court held that neither the plain language of Utah Code Ann.
§ 78-14-12(1)(d) nor the statutory purpose supported the
broad interpretation of the confidentiality requirement that
the court had recognized in that previous case law. Because
the patient had independent access to the notice of intent
and the opinion letter, their use in the pretrial proceeding
did not render them confidential. The court overruled the
last paragraph of Doe v. Maret, 984 P.2d 980 (Utah
1999) because it erroneously suggested that all documents
submitted to a pre-litigation panel were confidential.
Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp., 2007
UT 96, 2007 Utah LEXIS 219 (Vacated and Remanded) (J. Wilkins
dissenting) REN*, CMD, JNP-concur in REN's opinion. MJW*,
MBD - dissenting An expert skier sustained serious injuries
when he collided with a retaining wall while skiing at the
resort. The resort claimed that the skier waived his ability
to sue the resort for its ordinary negligence when he
purchased two resort passes that released the resort from
liability for its ordinary negligence. The court concluded
that the release and indemnify agreements the skier signed
were contrary to the public policy of the State of Utah and
were, therefore, unenforceable. The court also held that the
core purpose of Utah's Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, see
Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-27-51 to -54 (2002 & Supp.
2007), was not to advance the cause of insulating ski area
operators from their negligence, but rather to make them
better able to insure themselves against the risk of loss
occasioned by their negligence.
Berry v. Greater Park City Co.,
2007 UT 87, 171 P.3d 442 (Affirmed in part/Reversed in part)
REN* Before being allowed to participate in a ski race, a
skier was required to sign a release of liability and
indemnity agreement. The court held that the release was
enforceable. Assuming that skiercross racing was an
abnormally dangerous activity, the skier's role as a
participant in that activity also excluded him from
eligibility to recover under a theory of strict liability.
Mountain W. Surgical Ctr. v. Hosp. Corp. Of
Utah, 2007 UT 92, 2007 Utah LEXIS 212
(Affirmed) MBD* To block construction of a new medical
complex adjacent to the hospital, the hospital filed a
lawsuit against the property owner and recorded a notice of
lis pendens on the property. The company claimed that by
filing the first lawsuit and the lis pendens, the hospital
caused the complex to be built in a different location,
resulting in increased costs and delays. The court noted that
the company offered no testimony other than the affidavit of
an employee, that the lis pendens caused them to refuse to
proceed with the sale of the property. Instead, the
employee's affidavit was insufficient because: (1) it was
not based on the employee's personal knowledge, as
required by Utah R. Evid. 602, and (2) even if a proper
foundation for the employee's statements were assumed,
they were factually insufficient to establish causation.
Moss v. Pete Suazo Utah Athletic
Comm'n, 2007 UT 99, 2007 Utah LEXIS 222
(Affirmed) JNP* Decedent's sister sought to recover
damages from the Pete Suazo Utah Athletic Commission for
negligently allowing her brother to fight in a boxing match,
even though his physical condition and boxing record violated
certain commission rules. The court held that the commission
was immune from suit under Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-1 to
-38 (2004), the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, because the
actions in question fell within the exception articulated in
section 63-30-10(3). Section 63-30-10(3) states that immunity
is not waived for "the issuance, denial, suspension, or
revocation of or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny,
suspend, or revoke any permit, license, certificate,
approval, order, or similar authorization." Since
petitioner's allegations of negligence were directed to
"licensing decisions" for which immunity had not
been waived, her claim failed.
Utahns for Better Dental Health-Davis v.
Rawlings, 2007 UT 97, 2007 Utah LEXIS 220
(Reversed and Remanded) CMD*, MBD, JNP-concur in CMD's
opinion MJW*, REN-dissenting The court held that de novo
review is the appropriate standard of review for attorney fee
awards under the private attorney general doctrine. Further,
the court held that an award of attorney fees was appropriate
in this case because it involved vindication of a strong or
societally important public policy concerning the misuse of
the constitutionally-based initiative power and the integrity
of a public election.
Bilanzich v. Lonetti, 2007 UT 26
160 P.3d 1041 (Reversed and Remanded) JNP*, MBD, CMD-concur
in JNP's opinion MJW*, REN-dissenting In an action
seeking to have a personal guaranty declared unenforceable,
petitioner guarantor filed a motion seeking his attorney fees
under Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-56.5 (2002). Petitioner
argued that the statute allowed an award of attorney fees
pursuant to a contract, where a party successfully claimed
the same contract was unenforceable due to the failure of a
condition precedent. The court held that Utah Code Ann.
§ 78-27-56.5 granted the district court discretion to
award attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party if the
writing that formed the basis of the lawsuit provided
attorney fees for at least one party. Although the guaranty
itself was rendered unenforceable by the failure of a
condition precedent, the statute focused on the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial