A recent decision by the Utah 7th District Court has thrown the family of Gabby Petito's wrongful death lawsuit against the Moab Police Department for what they claim was negligence leading to her tragic death. This ruling, which came down on November 20, 2024, has highlighted the complex legal framework surrounding governmental immunity laws.
Gabby Petito, whose case captured national attention, was reported missing during the summer of 2021, leading to extensive media coverage and public concern. Tragically, her remains were discovered weeks later near Grand Teton National Park, and her death was ruled as homicide. The primary suspect, her fiancé Brian Laundrie, took his own life shortly after being named as the person of interest.
The lawsuit arose from events leading up to her death, particularly on August 12, 2021, when Moab police responded to reports of domestic violence involving Petito and Laundrie. Eyewitnesses noted signs of distress from Petito, yet the Moab police did not take significant action at the time. Instead, after interviewing both individuals, they allowed the couple to continue their trip, which the Petito family argues directly connects to the unfortunate circumstances of Gabby’s murder.
Judge Don Torgerson dismissed the lawsuit based on the state’s governmental immunity laws, which currently shield public officials from personal liability. He noted, “The matter is too big for district courts to decide; appeals courts will need to explore this more thoroughly.” While he expressed some agreement with the Petitos’ arguments about inadequate policing practices, he clarified it wasn't enough to hold the police accountable under the existing laws.
According to the City of Moab’s defense attorney, Mitchell Stephens, Petito's death was not directly attributable to the police’s handling of the domestic violence incident. He explained how Petito had traveled approximately 400 miles away to Wyoming, where she was later murdered, emphasizing the time lapse between the police’s involvement and her death, which occurred more than a month later. Citing previous rulings, Stephens claimed speculation about causation was inadequate grounds for the lawsuit.
Petito's family attorney, Judson Burton, continues to challenge these immunity laws, arguing they unlawfully hinder the ability of families to seek justice for wrongful deaths caused by public servants. Burton contends, “The founders of Utah intended for wrongful death claims to be lawful; shielding governmental employees should not be standard.” He plans to bring cases from Utah's legal history to support their position.
Following the ruling, the Petito family shared their determination to continue pursuing justice for Gabby, stating, “While today may feel like a setback, we have not lost hope. We believe the Utah Supreme Court will validate our right to sue under the state constitution.” This sentiment reflects their broader goal of holding the police accountable for their alleged negligence during the domestic violence inquiry.
The appeal process seems to be the next step, as the family’s legal team prepares to navigate the intricacies of Utah’s legal standards, which have become pivotal factors influencing public safety and accountability.
Regardless of the ruling, Gabby Petito's story continues to resonate widely, reminding the public of the tragedies stemming from domestic violence and the systemic changes many advocates hope to see to improve the response from law enforcement. The outcome of any appeals may lead to not just personal ramifications for the Petito family but also broader implications for how similar cases are handled across the state and beyond. The fight for justice isn't over, and with public support, the family remains hopeful for eventual redress.
