## Facts

- John Laney was electrocuted and killed on September 16, 1991, while moving irrigation pipe on a farm.
- Laney carried a thirty-foot aluminum irrigation pipe that contacted, or came within arcing distance of, high-voltage power lines owned by Fairview City.
- The plaintiffs alleged the power lines failed to meet minimum safety standards because they were too low, uninsulated, and lacked warnings.
- Laney’s widow and children sued Fairview City for wrongful death, alleging negligent maintenance and operation of the municipal electrical power system.
- Fairview City asserted governmental immunity under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act, including immunity for governmental functions and the discretionary-function exception.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah Code § 63-30-2(4)(a), as amended in 1987 to deem all municipal acts “governmental functions,” violates Utah Constitution article I, section 11 (open courts) as applied to municipalities operating electrical power systems.
2. Whether Fairview City could claim discretionary-function immunity for decisions regarding upgrading, modifying, or warning about the power lines.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Fairview City and remanded for trial.
- The court held the 1987 amendment deeming all municipal acts “governmental functions” was unconstitutional as applied to municipal operation of an electrical power system.
- The court ruled that, in this case, Fairview City could not rely on governmental immunity and the case had to proceed on the merits without an immunity defense.

## Legal Principles

- Utah’s open courts clause protects access to a remedy for injuries and limits legislative power to abolish established causes of action.
- A statute that eliminates a well-established remedy violates the open courts clause unless (1) it provides an adequate substitute remedy or (2) the restriction is justified as a reasonable exercise of police power that outweighs the remedial right.
- A legislative reclassification that grants blanket immunity to municipalities for activities historically treated as proprietary, thereby extinguishing traditional negligence actions against municipal utilities, can violate the open courts clause when no meaningful substitute remedy is provided.
- General fiscal or policy interests (such as protecting public funds) may be legitimate goals but are insufficient, standing alone, to justify eliminating a traditional tort remedy for municipal utility negligence.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that extending blanket municipal immunity to the operation of a city electrical power system unconstitutionally abolished a longstanding negligence remedy without an adequate substitute or sufficient police-power justification, so the wrongful-death claim could proceed to trial without a governmental-immunity defense.


Laney v. Fairview City, 57 P.3d 1007 (Utah 2002)