Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah
853 P.2d 877 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Utah's Liability Reform Act, a jury must consider the fault of a plaintiff's employer when apportioning liability, even if the employer is immune from suit under the Workers' Compensation Act. However, a jury may not apportion fault to a party that has been dismissed from the litigation following a judicial determination on the merits that it was not at fault as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Kenneth Sullivan was employed by Scoular Grain Company, Freeport Center Associates, and Scoular Grain Company of Utah (the Scoular parties).
- Sullivan's job required him to unload grain from rail cars at the Freeport Center in Clearfield, Utah.
- In October 1986, while working, Sullivan was involved in an accident on the railroad tracks.
- As a result of the accident, Sullivan suffered severe injuries, including the loss of his left arm and left leg.
- The accident allegedly involved the actions or omissions of Sullivan's employers as well as other entities, including Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (D&RG).
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Sullivan filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against his employers (the Scoular parties), and other entities including Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RG).
- The federal district court dismissed the Scoular parties from the action, holding they were immune from suit under the exclusive remedy provision of Utah's Workers’ Compensation Law.
- The district court also dismissed defendant D&RG after finding it had no legal duty to Sullivan.
- A remaining defendant, Trackmobile, Inc., moved to have the jury apportion and compare the fault of all originally named defendants, including the dismissed Scoular parties and D&RG.
- Because this was an unresolved question of state law, the United States District Court certified two questions to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Utah's Liability Reform Act, can a jury apportion fault to entities that are not parties at trial, specifically (1) a plaintiff's employer who is immune from suit under the Workers' Compensation Act, and (2) a party who has been dismissed from the case based on an adjudication of the merits?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, J.
Yes, as to the immune employer; No, as to the party dismissed on the merits. A jury must apportion the fault of a plaintiff's immune employer, but not of a party dismissed pursuant to an adjudication on the merits of the liability issue. The central purpose of the Utah Liability Reform Act is to abolish joint and several liability and ensure that no defendant is held liable for an amount of damages greater than its own percentage of fault. While the Act's definition of "defendant" appears to exclude immune parties, strictly applying this definition would frustrate the Act's primary purpose by forcing remaining defendants to pay for the immune employer's share of fault. Harmonizing the statutory scheme requires including the immune employer's fault in the apportionment calculus; this does not impose civil liability on the employer but merely ensures a fair allocation among the remaining defendants. Conversely, a party like D&RG, which was dismissed because a court determined as a matter of law that it had no legal duty and thus no fault, cannot be included in the apportionment. Its exclusion does not unfairly burden other defendants because its share of legal fault has already been adjudicated to be zero.
Dissenting - Stewart, J.
No. A jury cannot apportion the fault of an immune non-defendant. The majority ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the Liability Reform Act. The Act explicitly states that fault is to be apportioned only among the "person seeking recovery" and "each defendant." It then defines a "defendant" as a person "not immune from suit." Therefore, an immune employer is definitionally excluded from the apportionment process. The legislative history confirms this intent, as a provision that would have allowed apportionment to "each other person whose fault contributed" was specifically deleted from the final bill. The majority's holding subverts this clear legislative command and imposes its own policy, which unfairly shifts the entire burden of an immune party's fault onto the injured plaintiff rather than distributing it among all parties with actionable fault.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of several-only liability in Utah tort law, prioritizing the policy of holding defendants liable only for their own share of fault over a literal reading of the statute's definitional section. By requiring juries to account for the fault of immune employers, the court significantly impacts plaintiffs' potential recoveries in third-party actions, as the total judgment is reduced by the employer's percentage of fault. This creates a potentially inequitable outcome where an injured employee bears the financial burden of their employer's negligence, especially since the employer may still assert a reimbursement lien on the reduced recovery. The case establishes a crucial distinction between immune non-parties, whose fault must be considered, and non-parties dismissed on the merits, whose fault is excluded from apportionment.
Unlock the full brief for Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah