Opinion ID: 1287276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Constitutional Claim

Text: Next, we examine whether governmental immunity shields DeLand, Freestone, and Laney from Bott's action under the unnecessary rigor clause of the Utah Constitution, article I, section 9. As with the negligence claim, Bott asserts that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) should not be applied because doing so would violate the open courts clause. We agree that these subsections should not be applied, but we do not base our conclusion upon the open courts clause. Quite simply, we decline to apply these subsections because they constitute an unreasonable regulation of Bott's article I, section 9 right to be free of unnecessary rigor. [A]ny rule or regulation in regard to the remedy which does not, under pretense of modifying or regulating it, take away or impair the right itself, cannot be regarded as beyond the proper province of legislation. 2 Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 756 (1927). However, the legislature's fraud or malice standard contained in subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) impairs article I, section 9 rights because it does bar claims that would otherwise be allowed under the standards that we will subsequently discuss. Moreover, governmental immunity cannot apply where a claimant alleges that the state or a state employee violated his constitutional rights. Colman v. Utah State Land Bd., 795 P.2d 622, 630-35 (Utah 1990); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 900-01 (Utah 1981); Burdette v. State, 166 Mich.App. 406, 421 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1988); Terranova v. State, 111 Misc.2d 1089, 445 N.Y.S.2d 965, 969 (1982) (However [the state's police power] must be exercised reasonably ... and with scrupulous regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.). But see Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 604 P.2d 1198, 1205 (1979); Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379, 1386 (Okla. 1993). As the Michigan court of appeals explained: Constitutional rights serve to restrict government conduct. These rights would never serve this purpose if the state could use governmental immunity to avoid constitutional restrictions. Burdette, 421 N.W.2d at 187. Thus, we decline to apply the fraud or malice standard of subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) to Bott's article I, section 9 claim.