Christenson v. Hayward, 19391
| Decision Date | 11 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 19391,19391 |
| Citation | 694 P.2d 612 |
| Parties | A.B. CHRISTENSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Lance Christenson, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. M.D. "Pete" HAYWARD, Sheriff of Salt Lake County; Roger F. Taylor, Deputy Sheriff, Salt Lake County; Michael M. Davis, Deputy Sheriff, Salt Lake County; Michael Stewart, Bart Barker, Tom Shimizu, Board of Commissioners, Salt Lake County, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John B. Hiatt, Murray, for plaintiff and appellant.
L.E. Midgley, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.
The plaintiff appeals from the granting of a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Utah R.Civ.P. The complaint alleged negligence of two deputy sheriffs based on their failure to arrest plaintiff's decedent, as allegedly they should have done under their statutory duty to "preserve the peace" and to "make all lawful arrests." 1 The only point on appeal that requires review is whether the officers, believing the decedent to be drunk, failed to exercise the care of an ordinary person.
The only matter before us is the complaint. No amendment was requested and no other pleading was filed. The complaint alleged that the deputies responded to a call from a billiard hall reporting that a drunk was creating a disturbance. They met the decedent, who had been drinking, in the parking lot and requested that he walk his motorcycle from the location. The decedent complied, but was killed a few minutes later when he failed to negotiate a curve while driving the motorcycle. The complaint alleged that the deputies had reason to believe the decedent was drunk and should have arrested him. There is no allegation of any breach of the peace or that an arrest was necessary to quell a disturbance. The only suggestion of liability was a conclusion that the officers should have made an arrest.
The plaintiff concedes that in the past, the courts have held that statutory duties, as provided above, are owed to the public and not to particular individuals. Plaintiff suggests that we should espouse a trend to the effect that "public employees should be held liable for their tortious acts to the same extent as private persons." Such position overlooks the fact that the statute does not impose any duty to arrest on a private citizen, only a privilege to do so. To adopt plaintiff's suggestion would be to legislate by judicial fiat.
The authorities cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cope v. Utah Valley State Coll.
...corrections officials had no duty to prevent an inmate on weekend release from harming unidentified third parties); Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612, 612–13 (Utah 1984) (police officer did not have a duty to prevent a drunk motorcyclist from driving and harming himself); Obray v. Malmbe......
-
Cope v. Utah Valley State Coll.
...corrections officials had no duty to prevent an inmate on weekend release from harming unidentified third parties); Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612, 612–13 (Utah 1984) (police officer did not have a duty to prevent a drunk motorcyclist from driving and harming himself); Obray v. Malmbe......
-
Rollins v. Petersen, 880280
...to investigate a burglary were not "pursuable by an individual since the public official's duty is to the public...." In Christenson v. Hayward, 694 P.2d 612 (Utah 1984), deputies stopped but did not arrest an intoxicated motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was subsequently killed when he failed......
-
Owens By and Through Owens v. Garfield
...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). HALL, C.J., and HOWE, Associate C.J., concur in the concurring opinion of ZIMM......