Utah immunity law poses major obstacle to Kirk family’s wrongful death suit against UVU over security failures

The family of Charlie Kirk faces a formidable legal challenge in their wrongful death lawsuit against Utah Valley University (UVU), stemming from alleged security lapses that preceded his assassination. Attorneys for the Kirk family formally filed a notice of intent to sue on September 9, just one day shy of the one-year anniversary of his death. This legal action asserts a series of security failures by the university, including a refusal of additional police presence, inadequate responses to security concerns raised by Kirk’s team, and the absence of a comprehensive security plan for his campus visit.

However, legal experts indicate that a specific Utah government immunity statute could significantly impede the family’s pursuit of justice. This law grants government entities, their officers, and employees broad protection from lawsuits under various circumstances, including those arising from discretionary functions or claims involving assault and battery. The statute’s wide scope is expected to be a central point of contention in the impending legal proceedings.

Immunity law: A significant legal hurdle

The state of Utah’s government immunity statute presents a substantial barrier for the Kirk family. Legal scholar Tenielle Brown, a University of Utah law professor, highlighted the extreme difficulty the family will encounter in their wrongful death case. According to Brown, the statute is worded in such a way that even if the state or UVU acted with recklessness, they could still retain immunity in cases stemming from battery, which would encompass gunshot wounds.

Wrongful death claims against government entities are inherently challenging for plaintiffs to win. Government bodies typically enjoy extensive immunity from legal actions arising from assaults or batteries committed by third parties. Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, emphasized the difficulty in holding police, city, county, or state entities accountable for the criminal acts of others, even in cases involving security deficiencies.

The statute’s broad provisions cover a wide array of situations, making it particularly potent:

• Performance or failure to perform a discretionary function.
• Claims involving assault.
• Claims involving battery.
• False imprisonment.
• Malicious prosecution.
• Civil rights violations.

Key evidence and past legal precedents

Despite the formidable legal landscape, the Kirk family may possess compelling evidence to bolster their case. A crucial piece of evidence could be a message from UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long. This message reportedly acknowledged concerns regarding rooftop access to the Sorenson Center, a building situated near where Kirk was scheduled to speak. Prosecutors have indicated that Tyler Robinson, the accused assassin, fired the fatal shot from the Sorenson Center, which lies directly west of the Losee Center.

In response to the security concerns, Chief Long reportedly messaged Kirk’s team with the assurance, “I got you covered.” Rahmani suggested that this communication could be vital, as it implies the university assumed responsibility for Kirk’s safety and potentially failed to uphold that duty. This element is often stronger in court than merely arguing a general duty to protect all citizens, given that governments are not typically held liable for all criminal acts.

However, Brown pointed to a precedent illustrating the statute’s power. The case of Mika Scott, a 19-year-old UVU student, involved a lawsuit against Utah County and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office. Scott was raped in 2010 by Shawn Leonard, a prisoner with a violent criminal history who had escaped from a work-release program. Despite potential evidence of carelessness or recklessness by the government in screening inmates and policing job site boundaries, Scott was unable to prevail due to the immunity statute, as her claim arose from a battery.

Judicial signals and accountability gaps

The Utah Supreme Court itself has previously addressed the strict language of the immunity statute. In its 2005 decision in Wagner v. Utah, the court clarified that civil battery does not necessitate an intent to cause physical or psychological injury. Brown noted that in this ruling, the court signaled to the legislature that it “may not be prudent for the state to continue to retain immunity” in such cases, effectively suggesting a need for statutory amendment to allow suits in situations akin to Charlie Kirk’s death. Despite this judicial suggestion, the state legislature has not revised the statute, leaving its broad protections intact.

This legislative inaction creates a significant gap in accountability, particularly for unelected state officials. Brown argued that traditional notions of sovereign immunity, which often link government accountability to the ballot box, do not apply to figures like a university president or campus police. These individuals are not elected officials, meaning citizens cannot vote them out of office for perceived failures in their duties. This absence of a political check further underscores the challenges faced by families seeking redress through the courts under Utah’s current immunity framework.