Herland v. Izatt

Utah Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyNegligent EntrustmentFirearmsduty of carenegligent entrustmentfirearms

Facts

Izatt hosted a party at his home where guests, including Neely Creager, drank heavily; Creager reached a blood alcohol content of 0.25. During the evening, she gained possession of Izatt's loaded handgun, but the record contained conflicting accounts as to whether Izatt affirmatively allowed or supplied her access, left the gun out, or instead took it back and locked it away. Creager then shot herself in the head, and for purposes of the appeal both sides agreed the shooting was accidental. Her estate sued Izatt for negligently allowing her access to the loaded handgun while she was severely intoxicated.

Issue

Does a gun owner owe a duty in tort to exercise reasonable care in supplying a firearm to an intoxicated or otherwise impaired individual? And, where the facts are disputed, can summary judgment be granted on the theory that the owner's conduct was merely an omission and therefore created no duty?

Rule

A gun owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in supplying a gun to others, such as children and incompetent or impaired individuals, whom the owner knows or should know are likely to use the gun in a manner that creates a foreseeable risk of injury to themselves or third parties. In assessing duty, Utah considers factors including whether the conduct was an affirmative act or omission, the foreseeability of injury, public policy, and which party is best situated to prevent the harm; absent a special relationship, duty generally depends on an affirmative act rather than pure nonfeasance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a backyard gathering in Provo, Noah Pritchard notices that his friend Elena Ruiz is slurring her words and stumbling after several hours of drinking. Noah unlocks a storage case, hands Elena a loaded pistol to "take a look," and she accidentally fires it into her own leg moments later.

If Elena sues Noah for negligence, which is the strongest argument that Noah owed her a duty of care?

Explanation. The majority recognized a duty where a gun owner exercises an affirmative act of supplying a firearm to a child or incompetent or impaired person whom the owner knows or should know is likely to use it in a way creating a foreseeable risk of injury. A host-guest special relationship is not required here, and duty-level foreseeability is evaluated broadly, not by the precise mechanism of harm. First-party recovery is not barred as a matter of law, though comparative negligence may later limit or bar recovery. (Derived from Herland v. Izatt (n.d.).)