agreeing with majority that statute created no tort duty in present case and refusing to speculate as to when such a statute might create duty
How later courts described this case
- agreeing with majority that statute created no tort duty in present case and refusing to speculate as to when such a statute might create duty
- statute did not create duty to protect children who are never identified as being in need of protection
- child abuse statute creates duty on part of agency to protect only those children who are identified to agency as suspected victims of abuse
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring specially):
I concur in the opinion of Justice Durham, except that portion suggesting in dictum that if Matthew Owens had been individually identified to defendants as a potential victim of abuse, then plaintiffs could rely on the Utah child abuse prevention and treatment statute as creating a legal duty to take steps to protect him. At this point, I think it premature to speculate as to whether and when we might find the statute to create a duty upon which a tort action could be founded. See, e.g., Beach v. University 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). 1
HALL, C.J., and HOWE, Associate C.J., concur in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.
. This position represents the view of the majority of the Court on this issue.