Schultz v. Conger, 860181
| Decision Date | 03 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 860181,860181 |
| Citation | 755 P.2d 165 |
| Parties | Le Ann R. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Weldon CONGER, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John S. Snow, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Louis E. Midgley, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff Le Ann R. Schultz appeals from an order dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-30-11 and -13 (1986).
Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant Weldon Conger to recover damages for her personal injuries. She alleged that while Conger was operating a motor vehicle for Salt Lake County, he negligently struck the rear of her vehicle, which was stopped at an intersection. Salt Lake County has not been made a party to this action. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-13 (1986), which provides that a claim against a political subdivision or against its employee for an act occurring during the performance of his duties is barred unless notice of the claim is filed with the governing body of the political subdivision within one year after the claim arises. Plaintiff did not file a claim in accordance with this section.
However, in support of his motion to dismiss, defendant submitted an affidavit stating that at the time of the accident, he was serving subpoenas in the course of his employment as a deputy sheriff of Salt Lake County. This activity is clearly nongovernmental since rule 14(c) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure and rules 45(c) and 4(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provide that subpoenas in both criminal and civil cases may be served by any adult person. We held in Standiford v. Salt Lake City, 605 P.2d 1230 (Utah 1980), that the Governmental Immunity Act, sections 63-30-1 through -38, afforded immunity to the state, its political subdivisions, and its employees only when the employee is engaged in an essential governmental function, which we defined as a function which only government can perform. We later held that the notice requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act contained in section 63-30-13 applied only to claims arising from the performance of a true governmental function and not to nongovernmental functions. Cox v. Utah Mortgage & Loan, 716 P.2d 783 (Utah 1986); Dalton v. Salt Lake Suburban Sanitary District, 676 P.2d 399 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood Associates
...Institutions Commissioners' liability as individuals for gross negligence was a change in the substantive law); Schultz v. Conger, 755 P.2d 165, 166 (Utah 1988) (the court held that a notice requirement added to the Governmental Immunity Act would not apply retroactively); Stephens v. Hende......
-
Thomas v. Color Country Management
...that an amendment that alters the notice requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act is substantive. The plaintiff in Schultz v. Conger, 755 P.2d 165 (Utah 1988), sued a county employee for personal injuries that the county employee allegedly caused the plaintiff in a traffic accident. Th......
-
Madsen v. Borthick
...will not be read to operate retrospectively unless the legislature has clearly expressed that intention. See, e.g., Schultz v. Conger, 755 P.2d 165, 166 (Utah 1988); Stephens v. Henderson, 741 P.2d 952, 953-54 (Utah 1987); Pilcher v. State, 663 P.2d 450, 455 (Utah 1983); Department of Socia......
-
Roark v. Crabtree
...unless the legislature has clearly expressed that intention." Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 253 (Utah 1988) (citing Schultz v. Conger, 755 P.2d 165, 166 (Utah 1988); Stephens v. Henderson, 741 P.2d 952, 953-54 (Utah 1987); Pilcher v. State, 663 P.2d 450, 455 (Utah 1983); State v. Higgs,......