Court Opinion

ID: 9630390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:10:08.235296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:38.139714
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring specially):
I concur in the opinion of Justice Durham, except that portion suggesting in dictum that if Matthew Owens had been individually identified to defendants as a potential victim of abuse, then plaintiffs could rely on the Utah child abuse prevention and treatment statute as creating a legal duty to take steps to protect him. At this point, I think it premature to speculate as to whether and when we might find the statute to create a duty upon which a tort action could be founded. See, e.g., Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413 (Utah 1986) (discussion of factors to be considered before tort duty is implied); Christensen v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 (Utah 1984) (per curiam) (discussion of public/private duty dichotomy).1
HALL, C.J., and HOWE, Associate C.J., concur in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.

. This position represents the view of the majority of the Court on this issue.