respondeat superior doctrine in Utah

2024In Bishop, our supreme court addressed “the interaction between [Utah’s Liability Reform Act] and the 20221003-CA 9 2024 UT App 56 Sampson v. HB Boys common law doctrine of respondeat superior.” 2002 UT 36, ¶ 9 .

2018And although here the jury apportioned some fault to Smith's, the inquiry of whether or not Smith's is liable for the tortious acts of an independent contractor under a theory of vicarious liability is an inquiry outside the LRA's reach. ¶ 25 Smith's argues that in Bishop v. GenTec Inc. , 2002 UT 36 , 48 P.3d 218 , we recognized that the LRA preempts the doctrine of the respondeat superior . 5 In Bishop , we held, in the context of the reallocation of the fault initially assigned to an immune employer, id. ¶ 5, that "[a]pplication of the common law doctrine of respondeat superior to determine

2021INST. 2006)). ¶56 The court of appeals looked past these doctrines and instead inserted respondeat superior concepts into its analysis. ―Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers are held vicariously liable for the torts their employees commit when the employees are acting within the scope of their employment.‖ Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1040 (Utah 1991); see also Phillips v. JCM Dev.

2010See generally Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1040 (Utah 1991) ("Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers are held vicariously liable for the torts their employees commit when the employees are acting within the seope of their employment."). ¶18 Cheryl, Inc.'s conduct prior to and during trial therefore indicates that it had notice of a separate claim of negligence asserted against it and that it actively defended against that claim despite any vagueness in the pleadings.

2024In M.J., our supreme court faced a similar question when determining whether, under the Utah Uniform Trust Code, a trust could be held vicariously liable for a trustee’s acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 2016 UT 13 , ¶¶ 45–48.

2021See Wisan, 2016 UT 13, ¶ 54 ; Birkner, 771 P.2d at 1056–57 (explaining that two respondeat superior ―scope of employment‖ factors are whether the conduct is ―of the general kind the employee is employed to perform‖ and whether the acts were ―motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer‘s interest‖). ¶62 The Drews acknowledge that the court of appeals applied the respondeat superior test Wisan described.

2024Corp., 666 P.2d 876, 882 (Utah 1983) (holding that a broker could be subject to liability for a salesperson’s tortious acts despite being “in complete violation of [the broker’s] established policies and practices”). ¶29 Thus, applying the doctrine of respondeat superior to Utah Code section 13-7-4(3), we agree with Sampson that the existence of disputed material facts precludes summary judgment under the UCRA, and therefore the court’s grant of summary judgment under this common law cause of action was improper as well.

2021Corp., 666 P.2d 876, 881 (Utah 1983).

2021See Wisan, 2016 UT 13, ¶ 54 ; Birkner, 771 P.2d at 1056–57 (explaining that two respondeat superior ―scope of employment‖ factors are whether the conduct is ―of the general kind the employee is employed to perform‖ and whether the acts were ―motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer‘s interest‖). ¶62 The Drews acknowledge that the court of appeals applied the respondeat superior test Wisan described.

2016Thus, under section 1010 of that act, a trust is liable for the acts of a trustee when the trustee was acting within the scope of hlS responsibility as a trustee. 4 49 That leaves the question whether the tortious conduct of Jeffs can sustain the Trust's liability under the doctrine of respon-deat superior, The Trust advances two grounds for avoiding such liability: (1) that intentional acts in furtherance of sexual misconduct are not within the scope of a trustee's employment under the standard set forth in Birkner v. Salt Lake County, 771 P.2d 1053, 1057 (Utah 1989); and (2) that equitable c

2023Dyson v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383, 1385 (Utah 1996) (“[T]o establish [an employer’s] liability for [an employee’s] tortious conduct, [a plaintiff must] demonstrate that . . . an employer–employee relationship existed . . . at the time the tort occurred.”). ¶17 Aguila adamantly asserts that she never acknowledged or conceded that she failed to plead the existence of an employer– employee relationship.

2010Cheryl, Inc. apparently bases this conclusion on its reading of Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383 (Utah 1996), to mean that an entity cannot be vicariously liable for the negligence of a volunteer.

2021The court explained that, “[r]egardless of whether an employer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be directly liable for its acts or omissions in hiring or supervising its employees.” Id. at 124 . ¶19 Nebo argues that J.H. is distinguishable because West Valley City did not concede respondeat superior liability, as Nebo has in 5 RAMON v. NEBO SCHOOL DISTRICT Opinion of the Court this case.

2010See generally J.H. v. West Valley City, 840 P.2d 115, 124 (Utah 1992) ("Regardless of whether an em *1148 ployer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be directly Hable for its acts or omissions. ..."). ¶22 Lastly, the final judgment appropriately took into account the jury's determination that Son was a volunteer.

2024Contractors Ass’n, 458 U.S. at 403–04 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (indicating, at least in Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, that the Court would apply respondeat superior to section 1981 claims); cf. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (“In particular, we conclude that a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”). 20221003-CA 13 2024 UT App 56 Sampson v. HB Boys ¶23 For all these reasons, we conclude that common law principles, and particularly the doctrine of respond

2021And the court of appeals cited Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon and M.J. v. Wisan, see Drew, 2019 UT App 125, ¶¶ 18, 24 , both of which utilize a respondeat superior analysis.

2021See Wisan, 2016 UT 13 , ¶¶ 48– 49; Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon, 2002 UT 99 , ¶¶ 25–27, 61 P.3d 1009 (examining whether an employee‘s frauds fell within his ―scope of authority‖ by citing cases that apply the respondeat superior ―scope of employment‖ test (citing, e.g., Birkner, 771 P.2d at 1056 )). ¶61 Further, when the court of appeals analyzed the facts of this case, it concluded that RSN‘s representations and misrepresentations about Pacific‘s policies to make a sale ―served Pacific‘s interest[s]‖ and were ―consistent with the general work with which RSN was entrusted.‖ Drew, 2

2021Irrigation Co., 793 P.2d 897, 898 (Utah 1990). 2 Cite as: 2021 UT 30 Opinion of the Court Ludlow, as well as its continued entrustment of school buses to Ludlow. 2 ¶5 In its answer to the complaint, Nebo admitted that the doctrine of respondeat superior applied.

2016See Clark v. Pangan, 2000 UT 837 , ¶ 21, 998 P.2d 268 (inquiring into whether tortious conduct occurred "during the course of" employment); Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1087, 1042 (Utah 1991) (noting that a past case had rejected respondeat superior liability on the ground that "the employee's actions were a substantial departure from the course of employment").

2010See Dowsett v. Dowsett, 116 Utah 12 , 207 P.2d 809, 812-13 (1949) (Wolfe, J., concurring) (cautioning that in situations where one does a favor for another and there is no right to control, it may be inconsistent with public policy to impose the doctrine of respondeat superior); 18 see also Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 , 892 P.2d 150, 155 (1995) (concluding that reimbursement for incidental expenses did not establish an employment relationship); Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Commerce & Labor, 145 Idaho 415 , 179 P.3d 1071, 1079-81 (2008) (Jones, J., concur

2010See Dowsett v. Dowsett, 116 Utah 12 , 207 P.2d 809, 812-13 (1949) (Wolfe, J., concurring) (cautioning that in situations where one does a favor for another and there is no right to control, it may be inconsistent with public policy to impose the doctrine of respondeat superior); 18 see also Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 , 892 P.2d 150, 155 (1995) (concluding that reimbursement for incidental expenses did not establish an employment relationship); Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Commerce & Labor, 145 Idaho 415 , 179 P.3d 1071, 1079-81 (2008) (Jones, J., concur

2010See Dowsett v. Dowsett, 116 Utah 12 , 207 P.2d 809, 812-13 (1949) (Wolfe, J., concurring) (cautioning that in situations where one does a favor for another and there is no right to control, it may be inconsistent with public policy to impose the doctrine of respondeat superior); 18 see also Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 , 892 P.2d 150, 155 (1995) (concluding that reimbursement for incidental expenses did not establish an employment relationship); Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Commerce & Labor, 145 Idaho 415 , 179 P.3d 1071, 1079-81 (2008) (Jones, J., concur

2010See Dowsett v. Dowsett, 116 Utah 12 , 207 P.2d 809, 812-13 (1949) (Wolfe, J., concurring) (cautioning that in situations where one does a favor for another and there is no right to control, it may be inconsistent with public policy to impose the doctrine of respondeat superior); 18 see also Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 , 892 P.2d 150, 155 (1995) (concluding that reimbursement for incidental expenses did not establish an employment relationship); Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Dept of Commerce & Labor, 145 Idaho 415 , 179 P.3d 1071, 1079-81 (2008) (Jones, J., concur