7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Jessgreen2 sentences2012We agree with Gonzalez. $16 The general rule in Utah for vicarious liability is that "the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants." Thompson v. Jess, 1999 UT 22 , 1 18, 979 P.2d 322 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 409). 5 The retained control doctrine represents an exception to this general rule of non-liability. 2012We agree with Gonzalez. $16 The general rule in Utah for vicarious liability is that "the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his servants." Thompson v. Jess, 1999 UT 22 , 1 18, 979 P.2d 322 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 409). 5 The retained control doctrine represents an exception to this general rule of non-liability. | 1 | 3 |
Dayton v. Freegreen2 sentences2008Simply stated, the general contractor must exercise “such control over the means utilized that the contractor cannot cany out the injury-causing aspect of the work in his or her own way.” Id. ¶ 21; see also Dayton v. Free, 46 Utah 277 , 148 P. 408, 411 (1914) (stating that employers are liable when “the will and discretion of the contractor as to the time and manner of doing the work or the means and methods of accomplishing the results [are] subordinate and subject to that of the [general contractor]” (emphasis added)). ¶ 11 We conclude that Big D simply did not exercise sufficient control ov 2008Simply stated, the general contractor must exercise “such control over the means utilized that the contractor cannot cany out the injury-causing aspect of the work in his or her own way.” Id. ¶ 21; see also Dayton v. Free, 46 Utah 277 , 148 P. 408, 411 (1914) (stating that employers are liable when “the will and discretion of the contractor as to the time and manner of doing the work or the means and methods of accomplishing the results [are] subordinate and subject to that of the [general contractor]” (emphasis added)). ¶ 11 We conclude that Big D simply did not exercise sufficient control ov | 1 | 2 |
Quaid v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.green2 sentences2008See Quaid v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 2007 UT 27, ¶ 8 , 158 P.3d 525 . ¶ 6 Begaye contends that Big D is liable under the retained control doctrine because it controlled the workflow, timing, and sequencing of the construction of Wall 39. 2008See Quaid v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 2007 UT 27, ¶ 8 , 158 P.3d 525 . ¶ 6 Begaye contends that Big D is liable under the retained control doctrine because it controlled the workflow, timing, and sequencing of the construction of Wall 39. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Magana v. Dave Roth Construction
green
2 sentences2014Pursuant to the retained control doctrine, the employer of an independent contractor "remains liable for the contractor's actions when the employer participate[s] in or control[s] the manner in which the contractor's work is performed, and therefore owes [a] duty of care concerning the safety of the manner or method of performance implemented." Magana, 2009 UT 45, ¶ 23 , 215 P.3d 143 (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014Pursuant to the retained control doctrine, the employer of an independent contractor "remains liable for the contractor's actions when the employer participate[s] in or control[s] the manner in which the contractor's work is performed, and therefore owes [a] duty of care concerning the safety of the manner or method of performance implemented." Magana, 2009 UT 45, ¶ 23 , 215 P.3d 143 (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 2012–2014 |
Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.
green
2 sentences2008Begaye avers that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and concluding that Big D did not exercise sufficient control over the method and manner of Preferred’s work to have created a limited duty under the retained control doctrine. 2 “Summary judgment is appropriate only upon a showing ‘that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 2002 UT 69, ¶ 21 , 54 P.3d 1054 (quoting Utah R. 2008Begaye avers that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and concluding that Big D did not exercise sufficient control over the method and manner of Preferred’s work to have created a limited duty under the retained control doctrine. 2 “Summary judgment is appropriate only upon a showing ‘that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Waddoups v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 2002 UT 69, ¶ 21 , 54 P.3d 1054 (quoting Utah R. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.