Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch
416 P.3d 595
| Utah | 2017Background
- Melinda Bylsma bought a reclining chair from R.C. Willey; the chair injured Richard Bylsma. Plaintiffs sued R.C. Willey (retailer) and Human Touch (alleged manufacturer) asserting strict products liability, breach of implied warranties (UCC), and contract rescission.
- R.C. Willey moved to dismiss the tort and warranty claims based on the "passive retailer" doctrine (court of appeals' decision in Sanns v. Butterfield Ford), arguing immunity when the manufacturer is a named defendant.
- The district court granted dismissal of the tort and warranty claims under the passive retailer doctrine; only the rescission claim remained; R.C. Willey stipulated liability on rescission and tendered the purchase price.
- Both sides sought attorney fees under a security agreement and Utah Code § 78B-5-826; the district court denied fees, finding no prevailing party.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Liability Reform Act (LRA), Utah Code §§ 78B-5-817–823, creates immunity for passive retailers and to resolve the attorney-fee question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LRA immunizes "passive retailers" from strict products liability and warranty claims when the manufacturer is named | Bylsmas: LRA does not create retailer immunity and preserves strict products liability and warranty claims | R.C. Willey: LRA's apportionment scheme and prohibition on contribution effectively leave passive retailers with zero "fault," so they should be immune when manufacturer is sued | LRA does not create passive-retailer immunity; court overruled Sanns and reversed dismissal |
| Whether implied indemnity or contribution actions survive under the LRA | Bylsmas: LRA preserved strict liability and indemnity remedies; contribution elimination does not bar indemnity | R.C. Willey / Sanns: LRA bars contribution and, by conflation, forecloses implied indemnity, so passive retailers must be protected | Contribution is barred, but implied indemnity (distinct from contribution) survives; LRA did not abolish common-law indemnity arising from relationships |
| How to apportion "fault" under the LRA when multiple parties are strictly liable for the same defective product | Bylsmas: Apportionment must preserve strict-liability principles; treat chain-of-distribution as a unit and apply relative causation versus dividing strict liability among sellers | R.C. Willey / concurrence: LRA requires apportionment of fault to each defendant, so strictly liable sellers’ shares must be allocated (which could limit retailer liability) | Court holds strict-liability defendants who breached same duty should be treated as a unit vis-à-vis the plaintiff; apportionment must use "relative causation" (compare harm caused by defect vs. other causes) rather than split strict liability among sellers |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees under the contract/Utah Code § 78B-5-826 | Bylsmas: Reciprocal fee statute entitles prevailing party on rescission claim to fees; court should parse fees for that claim alone | R.C. Willey: argued no prevailing party overall | Court vacated district court's denial of fees: Bylsmas prevailed on rescission and satisfy the Hooban hypothetical test; district court erred by weighing unrelated claims not covered by the fee statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979) (Utah adopted Restatement §402A; framework and policy for strict products liability)
- Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 628 P.2d 1301 (Utah 1981) (allowed comparative consideration of strict liability and plaintiff misuse; discussed relative responsibility)
- Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, 94 P.3d 301 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (court of appeals decision adopting passive-retailer immunity under the LRA; overruled by this opinion)
- Graves v. N.E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (explains LRA's shift to assigning relative responsibility using relative fault and relative causation)
- Red Flame, Inc. v. Martinez, 996 P.2d 540 (Utah 2000) (applied LRA apportionment to statutory strict-liability context; discussed comparative fault principles)
- Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984) (adopted comparative causation approach for strict-liability cases; persuasive authority for treating product-defect harm as a unit against other causes)
- Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 902 P.2d 54 (N.M. 1995) (illustrates policy that strict liability protects consumers and ensures recovery when manufacturers are unavailable)