According to court documents, Bagley lost control of a Range Rover she was driving in the desert 17 miles east of Battle Mountain, Nev., on Dec. 27, 2011, when she hit a big sagebrush, causing the vehicle to flip upside down. 
 
 Her husband was thrown from the vehicle and suffered severe injuries. The 55-year-old was taken to Battle Mountain General Hospital, where he died Jan. 6, 2012. The couple's Shetland sheepdog, which was in the vehicle and ran after the crash, survived 53 days in the desert before being found. 
 
 In her suit, Bagley claims she was negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout and to keep her vehicle under proper control. 
 
 Third District Judge Paul Maughan dismissed the case in January 2014. 
 
 But last week, the appeals court reinstated the suit, saying in a 3-0 ruling that Utah statutes do not bar Bagley from seeking damages from herself. 
 
 Mark Rose and Reid Tateoka, the attorneys representing the widow in her capacity as personal representative, said Bagley sued to meet her legal responsibility to act to benefit the estate, not herself. By law, creditors will have to be paid before Bagley, as her husband's sole heir, could get any money from the estate. 
 
 "She can't, by law, look out for herself," Tateoka said Tuesday. "She has to look out for the estate." 
 
 Lawyers representing driver Bagley in the wrongful-death suit point out that in similar scenarios in other states, courts have held that allowing those at fault to recover damages would be unjust. 
 
 "Further, if this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether Barbara Bagley's fault caused Barbara Bagley's own harm," attorneys Peter Christensen and Kathryn Tunacik Smith said in a motion to dismiss the suit. "The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself." 
 
 In its decision, the appeals court focused on the phrase "of another" in two statutes. 
 
 The wrongful-death law says heirs or personal representatives can sue when the death of a person is caused "by the wrongful act or neglect of another," and the survival action law also allows for similar lawsuits. 
 
 Driver Bagley's attorneys argued that the phrase "of another" means heirs or personal representatives cannot sue themselves if they caused the injury or death. 
 
 The appeals court disagreed and said the phrase "of another" means someone other than the injured or deceased person — and that allows Bagley, as personal representative, to sue herself. 
 
 Christensen said Tuesday that no decision has been made yet on whether to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. 
 
 — The Associated Press contributed to this story. 
 
 pmanson@sltrib.com 
 
 Twitter: @PamelaMansonSLC 

 An unusual lawsuit in Utah is raising eyebrows among some legal and financial experts: A woman is suing herself in a wrongful death case. 
 
 Earlier this week, the Utah Court of Appeals ruled that Barbara Bagley could indeed begin legal proceedings against herself. Bagley wants to charge herself with negligence in a 2011 car accident that killed her husband. 
 
 She was driving the vehicle in the Nevada desert at the time when she hit a sagebrush and flipped the Range Rover over. Her husband was thrown from the car and later died from his injuries. 
 
 Bagley claims she was negligent for not keeping control of her vehicle and for "failing to maintain a proper lookout" while driving. 
 
 A state Third District judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, but it was reinstated last week in a unanimous ruling by the Utah Court of Appeals. 
 
 Bagley's attorneys say she is advancing this lawsuit for the benefit of her husband's estate because creditors will have to be paid before the widow can receive any money as her husband's only heir. 
 
 But other lawyers are looking to once again dismiss the suit, saying if it is allowed to continue, a jury would then be called upon to figure out if Bagley's negligence caused her own trauma. 
 
 "The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself," attorneys Peter Christensen and Kathryn Tunacik said in their motion. "The jury will be highly confused -- it cannot order a person to compensate herself." 
 
 John Holcomb, professor in the Department of Business Ethics and Legal Studies at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business, told CBS MoneyWatch the lawsuit is "quirky and also clever." 
 
 Bagley, he noted, plays multiple roles in this legal drama. She may be the two plaintiffs in the case, as heir and representative of the estate, but she's also the defendant. 
 
 "Bagley as the two plaintiffs is really trying to get Bagley's insurance carrier to pay for Bagley's negligence," Holcomb said. "You can see why several states would see such a suit as unjust, as a victory would allow the plaintiff to be rewarded for her own negligence. That raises an ethical question of unjust reward and lack of deservedness." 
 
 He also observed that the Utah Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision for the lawsuit to proceed, basing its opinion on state law. But that doesn't necessarily resolve the bizarre legal wrangling the case presents. 
 
 "Yes, the creditors will have first call on any money in the estate," Holcomb continued, "but they would in any case, so any damages paid would probably mainly benefit Bagley as heir, depending on debts owed by the deceased." 
 
 "Had there been a disinterested or less interested party appointed as representative of the estate, and that party had brought suit," he said, "there would be fewer questions raised about an unjust lawsuit and one not based purely on the enrichment of Bagley."
– This part makes sense: A woman in Utah named Barbara Bagley is suing the driver who caused a car crash that killed her husband. This part is screwy: Bagley herself is that same driver. As the Salt Lake Tribune explains, Bagley is playing dual roles here in the bizarre lawsuit—as the representative of her husband's estate, she is going after the person responsible for his death, which just happens to be herself. Utah's Court of Appeals allowed the suit to proceed earlier this month. The case stems from a one-vehicle accident in 2011 in which Bagley lost control of her vehicle while driving in the desert. Her husband was fatally injured when it flipped, and Barbara Bagley is now accusing Barbara Bagley of "failing to maintain a proper lookout while driving," reports CBS News. The attorneys for Bagley the driver ("whose interests in the case are represented by her insurance carrier," the Trib notes) argued unsuccessfully that the case should be dismissed. "The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself," they wrote. "The jury will be highly confused—it cannot order a person to compensate herself." The story has one bright spot: The couple's dog also was in the car, and it ran into the desert after the accident—only to be reunited with Barbara Bagley nearly two months later.