Utah Supreme Court
2025 UT 25 (click for full text of opinion)
The Utah Supreme Court held that the public duty doctrine precludes resident property owners’ nuisance claims against Salt Lake City related to issues of unsheltered people on city-owned properties.
A group of residents who live or operate businesses through Salt Lake City filed a lawsuit alleging the City’s failure to eliminate encampments created by unsheltered people on City-owned property. The residents claimed that the various unlawful or indecent behaviors and activities of, and interactions with, unsheltered people, interfered with the residents’ right to use and enjoyment of their neighboring properties. The residents filed a complaint in district court claiming public and private nuisance, and asked for injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to order the City to take immediate action to abate the nuisance. The district court ruled that the public duty doctrine precluded the residents’ claim and dismissed the complaint, and residents appealed.
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the dismissal under the public duty doctrine, which provides that a plaintiff cannot recover for the breach of duty owed to the general public, but must show that a duty is owed to him or her as an individual . The Court reasoned that because any actions the City could take to eliminate unsheltered encampments stem from powers the City has as a government actor, not as an ordinary landowner, these efforts are subject to the public duty doctrine as a duty the City owes to everyone. Moreover, the fact that the claimant residents adjoined particular City-owned properties did not create a special relationship that would avoid application of the doctrine, whereas nearly all residents adjoin City-owned land, whether sidewalks, parks, or roads, and the transient nature of the nuisance is not limited to the specific proximity of the claimants. Only the government actor can create a special relationship giving rise to liability through its own affirmative actions; the City’s failure to abate the nuisance in the way and within the timing the residents think best does not transfer blame from the third parties causing those injuries and harms to the City.
