Utah law granting broad immunity to government entities and their employees could make it difficult for Charlie Kirks family to pursue a wrongful death claim against the state and Utah Valley University â but there’s a key piece of evidence they’ve raised in legal filings that could clear the hurdle, according to a trial attorney and legal analyst.
“Utah law makes it very difficult for the Charlie Kirk family to proceed with a civil claim against the state and the university,” said Randolph Rice, a Maryland-based attorney and former prosecutor who is following the case.
The Utah Governmental Immunity Act shields government entities and employees from many civil damages claims, he said.
A lawsuit from the family of Gabby Petito against the Moab Police Department alleged that officers were negligent in their response to a traffic stop involving Brian Laundrie two weeks before he killed her. A judge dismissed the case on governmental immunity grounds. The Petito family is appealing.
“Generally speaking, they are immune from any type of civil suit, meaning money damages,” Rice said â but there is a potential exception.
Kirk’s family filed a notice of claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit, last week â alleging that Utah Valley University, the state of Utah and key officials failed to properly secure the event even after acknowledging responsibility for rooftop security, leading to his wrongful death.
Among the claims in the filing, UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long allegedly told Turning Point USA organizers “I got you covered” when they raised concerns about rooftop access around the campus courtyard.
That text message could be key to overcoming Utah’s immunity law, he said, because Kirk was shot and killed by a sniper on a rooftop.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
“What they’re going to try to do is, and I’m guessing this, is they’re going to say, look, because of the fact that they detrimentally relied on that, we’re not bound by the Governmental Immunity Act,” Rice said.
“That goes away or we get around that. We pierce that veil and, therefore, we can now go after the school, the police chief, the government agencies, because we detrimentally relied on the text message and that assurance that that rooftop was going to be protected.”
The notice of claim alleges that not only was there no physical police presence, no one was watching the camera feeds as the suspect came and went in real time.
