Utah House Bill 330 is not a narrow liability clarification as advertised, despite the clever cover story by Rep. Colin Jack that it was harming the poor electric companies because of existing regulatory policy and judicial overreach.
In lines 36–45, it creates an affirmative defense whenever harm results from conduct, an omission, or a condition that was “authorized or required” by statute, rule, permit, license, or order—placing government permission with multiple heads firmly on the scale in civil cases. In lines 46–50, liability is frozen at the moment conduct occurs or a condition “initially arises,” permanently blocking remedies for long-term or later-discovered harms, even if the authorization is later repealed or found unconstitutional. In lines 62–64, the defense applies regardless of theory—negligence, nuisance, strict liability, or otherwise—and in lines 65–66, the bill explicitly abrogates the common law wherever it conflicts. Tying civil remedies to permission effectively repeals the common law, closes the courthouse door by statute, and undermines open courts and the Article I, Section 10 guarantee of civil jury trials.There is a further poison pill: if a safeguard is not expressly enumerated, it is treated as waived—a get-out-of-jail-free card that collapses civil liability unless the government itself is the plaintiff. Equity exists so courts and juries can correct injustice when rigid rules cause harm, yet this bill pre-decides the outcome for government-allied actors regardless of evidence or injury. Subsection (2) reverses the burden of proof, forcing plaintiffs to disprove immunity. Though called “not immunity,” in practice this affirmative defense is nearly dispositive. It cements sovereign-style immunity and reduces accountability to permission—“I was just following orders.”
Leave a Reply