HB0355 revises Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act and creates a new nuisance cause of action involving government-owned or government-controlled property. The bill adds Section 78B-6-1102.1, which allows a private individual—defined as a landowner or tenant whose property or business is adjacent to government property—to sue a governmental entity when the entity, through action or inaction, permits a third party to create, contribute to, or maintain a public or private nuisance on that property. The new section defines public nuisance and private nuisance for this purpose, requires the action to be brought under existing nuisance procedures and time limits, and states that governmental immunity is not a defense in such cases.
The bill also amends Section 63G-7-301 to add this new nuisance action to the list of claims for which governmental immunity is waived. In effect, it expands the circumstances under which state and local governments can be sued, making them potentially liable in nuisance cases to the same extent as private parties when nuisance conditions arise on property they own or control, even if the nuisance is caused by a third party. The bill does not appropriate money and takes effect May 6, 2026.
A separate portion of the bill makes targeted changes to immunity waivers involving sexual misconduct in educational settings. It clarifies and expands waiver provisions for claims involving sexual battery or sexual abuse by school employees and higher-education employees in positions of special trust, while also recognizing limited defenses where a school or institution had adopted and implemented a code of conduct or policy governing behavior and took specified preventive steps. These provisions are aimed at school districts, charter schools, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, and institutions of higher education.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, the overall sentiment is difficult to measure directly. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a policy-driven effort to give neighboring property owners a clearer path to relief from nuisance conditions tied to government property, while also strengthening accountability in education-related abuse cases. The bill’s filing status suggests it was still early in the process and had not yet generated recorded floor or committee debate in the materials provided.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expansion of governmental liability and the removal of immunity defenses, especially where the nuisance is caused by third parties rather than by the government itself. Government entities may view the bill as increasing litigation exposure and operational burdens, while affected property owners and businesses are likely to support it as a needed remedy for persistent nuisance conditions. The education-related provisions could also raise questions about the scope of liability, the adequacy of school policies and training, and how broadly the special-trust and abuse exceptions should apply.
HB0355 amends Utah Code Section 63G-7-301 and enacts new Section 78B-6-1102.1, creating a statutory private right of action for nuisance claims against governmental entities and expressly barring governmental immunity as a defense in those cases. It also modifies immunity-waiver rules for certain sexual battery and sexual abuse claims involving public schools and higher education institutions, potentially increasing exposure for school districts, charter schools, and colleges when specified conditions are met.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials. The bill’s design suggests a generally pro-plaintiff, accountability-oriented approach, with likely support from adjacent property owners and victims’ advocates, and likely concern from government and education officials about expanded liability and litigation risk.
The most notable contention is the bill’s expansion of liability for governmental entities when a nuisance is created or maintained by a third party on government-controlled property, because it removes the governmental-immunity defense and treats government more like a private landowner. Another likely point of dispute is the education-related immunity waiver, which conditions liability on school or institutional policies and preventive steps but still broadens the circumstances under which schools and higher-education institutions can be sued for sexual misconduct by employees. Government attorneys, school administrators, and local public entities are the most likely opponents; adjacent landowners, tenants, and advocates for abuse survivors are the most likely supporters.