Opinion ID: 2630606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The School District's Immunity from Liability Under Section 63-30-10(18)(c) of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act

Text: ¶ 14 Section 63-30-10 of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act contains nineteen specific exceptions to the various waiver of immunity provisions found elsewhere in the Act. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10. This case requires the court to examine for the first time section 63-30-10(18)(c) of the Act. Section 63-30-10(18)(c) retains the state's immunity from liability for injuries arising from the regulat[ion], mitigat[ion], or handling [of] hazardous materials or hazardous wastes by governmental entities. The District claims that it is immune from liability for any injury caused to the Lovendahls because it was mitigating a hazardous waste problem within the meaning of section 63-30-10(18)(c) when it installed the vent pipe and propelled the sewer gas into the air near the Lovendahls' property. ¶ 15 In Ledfors v. Emery County Sch. Dist., 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), we clarified that determining whether a governmental entity is immune from suit under the Act requires the court to answer three questions: (1) Was the activity the entity performed a governmental function and therefore immunized from suit by the general grant of immunity contained in section 63-30-3 of the Utah Code? (2) If the activity undertaken was a governmental function, has some other section of the Act waived that blanket immunity? (3) If the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in this case? Id. at 1164. [2] ¶ 16 We answer the first Ledfors question in the affirmative. The activity of the District in venting the sewer gas was a governmental function subject to the general immunity provision of section 63-30-3 of the Act. Under section 63-30-3, all governmental entities are immune from suit for any injury which results from the exercise of a governmental function. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-3(1). Under the Act, governmental function includes any act, failure to act, operation, function, or undertaking of a governmental entity. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-2(4)(a). A governmental entity is defined as the state and its political subdivisions. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-2(3). The term political subdivision is further defined to include a school district. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-2(7). For the purposes of Ledfors analysis, the general grant of immunity in section 63-30-3, which applies broadly to all governmental entities, includes the school district's venting of the sewer line. ¶ 17 We also answer the second Ledfors question in the affirmative. That is, we believe that another section of the Governmental Immunity Act has waived the blanket immunity for governmental functions found in section 63-30-3. Specifically, the Lovendahls argue that section 63-30-9 of the Act waives immunity for the District's activities. That section reads: Unless the injury arises out of one or more of the exceptions to waiver set forth in Section 63-30-10, immunity from suit of all governmental entities is waived for any injury caused from a dangerous or defective condition of any public building, structure, dam, reservoir, or other public improvement. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-9 (1997). The District concedes that it built and operated the vent pipe on its property. Moreover, the District does not dispute that the emissions from the vent pipe were dangerous, or that the Lovendahls were injured by the operation of the vent pipe. Indeed, the District does not actually dispute the applicability of section 63-30-9 [3] at all, but argues instead that the waivers of immunity in section 63-30-9 are subject to the exceptions contained in section 63-30-10, [4] which includes the hazardous waste exception. ¶ 18 Having answered the first two of the three Ledfors questions in the affirmative, we now address the third: [i]f the blanket immunity has been waived, does the Act also contain an exception to that waiver which results in a retention of immunity against the particular claim asserted in this case? Ledfors, 849 P.2d at 1164. The District argues that section 63-30-10(18)(c) provides such an exception. Justice Howe and I disagree.