Christiansen v. Harrison Western, 2021 UT 65

Harrison Western contracted with UDOT to install an avalanche control (Blackjack Gazex) system in steep alpine terrain and had experience with such projects.
Despite knowing UDOT anticipated use of a walking (high-angle) excavator, Harrison Western rented a Caterpillar mini‑excavator for trenching on ~40° slopes.
The operator, Kasey Christiansen, experienced multiple prior slide-offs while using the mini‑excavator; supervisors knew but took no substantive mitigation, and after one slide he was sent home for the day.
On October 12, 2016 the mini‑excavator rolled, ejecting and fatally injuring Christiansen; his estate and heirs sued Harrison Western for negligence and related torts.
The district court granted Harrison Western’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive‑remedy barred the suit because plaintiffs failed to plead the Act’s narrow intentional‑injury exception; denial of leave to amend was also upheld as futile.
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed: the complaint (and proposed amendment) did not plausibly allege facts from which the employer believed the fatal injury was "virtually certain" to occur—a required showing to escape the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges the Workers’ Compensation Act’s intentional‑injury exception (employer intended harm / believed injury was virtually certain).	Christiansen alleged Harrison knew a walking excavator was required, yet used a mini‑excavator and ignored multiple prior slides, so Harrison must have believed injury was virtually certain.	Those facts at most show willful or grossly negligent conduct (which the Act covers); plaintiffs failed to plead that Harrison believed injury to this employee was virtually certain.	The allegations are insufficient: knowledge of risk and past (non‑injurious) slide‑offs do not permit a reasonable inference employer believed the fatal injury was virtually certain; dismissal affirmed.
Whether proposed Second Amended Complaint would cure pleading defects (futility of amendment).	The proposed amendment adds contract details, Harrison’s experience, and repeated slide incidents to support the intentional‑injury claim.	Even with those additions, plaintiffs still fail to allege facts establishing belief that injury was virtually certain; amendment is futile.	Amendment would be futile because added facts still do not satisfy the "virtually certain" standard; denial affirmed.

Bryan v. Utah Int’l, 533 P.2d 892 (Utah 1975) (established intentional‑injury exception where employer knowingly and wrongfully caused harm)
Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 203 P.3d 962 (Utah 2009) (pleading standard: injury intentional if actor desired consequence or believed injury was virtually certain; surrounding circumstances must support inference)
Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 361 P.3d 63 (Utah 2015) (intent may be inferred circumstantially; employer’s subjective belief must be supported by surrounding facts)
Arrow Indus., Inc. v. Zions First Nat’l Bank, 767 P.2d 935 (Utah 1988) (standard on accepting pleaded facts on 12(b)(6) review)
Park Utah Mining Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 220 P. 389 (Utah 1923) (distinguishing willful conduct from intentional tort for workers’ compensation purposes)