Bagley v. Bagley
2016 UT 48
| Utah | 2016Background
- Barbara Bagley (common-law wife) lost control of a vehicle; her husband Bradley Vom Baur was injured and died days later from those injuries.
- Bagley, as sole heir and personal representative of Vom Baur’s estate (Plaintiffs), sued Bagley individually (Defendant) under Utah’s wrongful death statute (Utah Code §78B-3-106) and survival action statute (Utah Code §78B-3-107) seeking damages to access insurance proceeds and satisfy estate creditors.
- The district court dismissed the suit, concluding the statutes and public policy preclude a person from suing themself in wrongful death/survival claims.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding the plain language of the statutes does not bar an heir or personal representative from suing a tortfeasor who is the same person in their individual capacity.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, affirmed the court of appeals, and remanded for further consideration of separate issues about actual recovery (e.g., comparative-fault bars and the Liability Reform Act).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bagley) | Defendant's Argument (Bagley individually) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah’s wrongful death statute permits an heir to sue a person who is also the heir for causing the decedent’s death | Statute allows heirs to maintain an action against the person causing the death; Bagley as heir may sue Bagley individually | "Of another" and statutory language require plaintiff and defendant to be different people; public policy bars self-suits | Statute’s plain language permits an heir to sue a tortfeasor even if the heir is the same person; dismissal reversed |
| Whether Utah’s survival-action statute permits a personal representative to sue a wrongdoer who is the same person | Survival statute authorizes personal representatives to sue wrongdoers; Bagley as PR may sue Bagley individually | "Of another" and the phrasing of plaintiffs v. defendants imply mutual exclusivity; absurdity doctrine should prevent this result | Survival statute’s plain language permits a PR to sue a wrongdoer even if the same person; dismissal reversed |
| Whether the court should rewrite statutes under the absurdity doctrine to bar such suits | Bagley: do not apply absurdity; statutes are unambiguous and reasonable legislative purposes (benefit heirs/creditors) support allowing suits | Defendant: result is absurd and unworkable; courts should reform statutes to prevent same-person suits | Absurdity doctrine not applicable: result not so overwhelmingly absurd that legislature could not have intended it; statutes left intact |
| Whether related statutes/public policy (e.g., Liability Reform Act, Slayer rule, insurance provisions) show legislative intent to bar these suits or bar recovery | Plaintiffs: related statutes do not create a gap or conflict and do not require interpreting wrongful death/survival statutes to exclude such suits | Defendant: other statutes and comparative-negligence principles indicate legislature did not intend negligent beneficiaries to recover | Court: related statutes address recovery or other issues but do not change the plain meaning of the wrongful death/survival statutes; whether recovery is barred (e.g., by LRA) is left to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Wagoner v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 186 P.2d 293 (Utah 1947) (predecessor wrongful-death statute interpreted to exclude cases where decedent solely contributed to his own death)
- Switzer v. Reynolds, 606 P.2d 244 (Utah 1980) (wrongful-death action is for benefit of all heirs; one action binds all heirs)
- Forrer v. Reed, 560 P.2d 1113 (Utah 1977) (recognizing practical problems where a guardian would have to sue himself)
- Fehringer v. Commercial Nat’l Bank of Ogden, 64 P. 1108 (Utah 1901) (executor who defrauded could not logically prosecute claim against self — discussed as historical context)
- Cox v. Laycock, 345 P.3d 689 (Utah 2015) (distinguishes statutory gaps from silence; used to reject borrowing legislative intent where statutes are not ambiguous)
- Utley v. Mill Man Steel, Inc., 357 P.3d 992 (Utah 2015) (describes distinction between absurd consequences canon and the more demanding absurdity doctrine)