Court of Appeals hears dispute over UDOT immunity in wrongful‑death claim on US‑89

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Abdul Gad v. Utah Department of Transportation over whether UDOT is immune from an estate's wrongful‑death suit arising from a 2018 crash on US‑89 in Logan Canyon.

Sher Walton, counsel for the estate, told the court the district court erred in granting UDOT immunity. Walton relied on UDOT's own six‑step project‑preparation chart and said the department failed at identifiable operational steps — for example, preparing a multi‑year crash history and moving the matter up the review chain — which she said removed the discretionary‑function shield. Walton said project records and testimony show truck‑safety features (signage, a brake‑check area and an escape/runaway ramp) were not considered in the design and planning phases and that UDOT’s region staff failed to forward crash information for analysis.

Walton pointed to testimony from Jeffrey Lewis, an engineer involved in the 1990s–2004 improvement project, that no truck‑escape‑ramps were discussed in the design process, and to testimony from a region‑level director who said he would have initiated a study if made aware of a fatality. Walton also relied on expert affidavit testimony (Dr. Prisbilia) who said the raw crash numbers and federal guidance would have produced a cost‑benefit result favoring safety countermeasures at lower pre‑2018 thresholds.

UDOT counsel Peggy Stone argued the district court correctly excluded the plaintiffs' experts. Stone said the estate's principal expert relied on restricted HSIP material and an antiquated grade‑severity rating (GSR) system that is not generally accepted by the relevant road‑safety community. Stone further argued the expert did not reliably establish causation or that UDOT would have prioritized and completed specific countermeasures before 2018, and that even if negligence were shown, the discretionary‑function exception to governmental immunity still applies.

The court questioned both sides about practical steps in UDOT's process: how frequently crash data are reviewed (operational meetings occur regularly and recommended projects are prioritized annually), whether an individual region official's knowledge would have triggered formal review, and whether an operational failure to collect or forward crash data is distinct from a discretionary choice about whether to fund or implement countermeasures.

Counsel debated whether a single fatality or other crashes would have produced the cost‑benefit ratio necessary to fund and construct a runaway truck ramp before 2018; Walton said the ramp was later installed after subsequent fatalities and that signage and brake‑check areas, being inexpensive, would also have qualified earlier. UDOT responded that the plaintiffs' experts did not opine specifically that particular countermeasures would have been installed on the relevant timeline and that causation therefore relied on speculative inferences.

After rebuttal, the court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a decision as soon as practicable.