Bylsma v. R.C.WilleyHumanTouch
2017 UT 85
| Utah | 2017Background
- Melinda Bylsma bought a reclining chair from retailer R.C. Willey; the chair allegedly crushed Richard Bylsma’s foot.
- Plaintiffs sued R.C. Willey (retailer) and Human Touch (manufacturer) for strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and rescission.
- The district court dismissed the tort and warranty claims against R.C. Willey under the Utah Court of Appeals’ "passive retailer" doctrine (Sanns), leaving only rescission; Willey then paid the purchase price.
- Both sides sought attorney fees under a security agreement and Utah’s reciprocal fee statute; the district court denied fees, finding no prevailing party.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Liability Reform Act (LRA) immunizes passive retailers and to resolve the fee issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LRA creates immunity for passive retailers when the manufacturer is named | Bylsmas: LRA preserves strict products liability and does not immunize retailers; passive-retailer immunity conflicts with LRA and state constitutional provisions | Willey: LRA’s apportionment and prohibition on contribution imply passive retailers bear zero fault when manufacturer is present, so immunity follows | LRA does not create passive-retailer immunity; strict products liability preserved and retailers can be sued |
| Whether strict products liability can be apportioned among multiple strictly liable defendants | Bylsmas: Strict liability is liability without fault and cannot be parceled among sellers; LRA intended to preserve that doctrine | Willey / concurrence: LRA requires apportionment of fault among defendants, so strict-liability fault must be allocated among sellers | Court: Do not apportion strict-liability fault among co-defendants; treat sellers as a unit vis-à-vis plaintiff and apply comparative causation to allocate between product-caused harm and other causes |
| Whether LRA forecloses implied indemnity and contribution suits | Bylsmas: LRA bars contribution but preserves implied indemnity (relationship-based) | Willey / Sanns: LRA bars subsequent indemnity/contribution, so retailers cannot seek indemnity from manufacturers | Court: LRA bars contribution actions but does not abolish implied indemnity; indemnity is distinct and may proceed consistent with LRA (unitary fault allocation vis-à-vis plaintiff) |
| Whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties for reciprocal contractual fee-shifting | Bylsmas: They prevailed on rescission and thus are entitled to fees under the reciprocal fee statute | Willey: Plaintiffs did not prevail overall; district court balanced claims and denied fees | Court: Vacated denial of fees; plaintiffs prevailed on the rescission claim covered by the contract/statute and are eligible for reasonable fees (district court must apportion and award fees for the covered claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, 94 P.3d 301 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (court of appeals decision recognizing "passive retailer" immunity — overruled)
- Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979) (Utah adoption of Restatement §402A and articulation of strict products liability)
- Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 628 P.2d 1301 (Utah 1981) (discussing comparative principles and relative responsibility in strict liability contexts)
- Red Flame, Inc. v. Martinez, 996 P.2d 540 (Utah 2000) (apportionment under LRA applied in non-products strict-liability context)
- Graves v. N.E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (reaffirming LRA focus on relative fault and relative causation)
- Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984) (adopting comparative causation approach for strict-liability cases; persuasive authority for treating product defendants as a unit)