Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc.
2015 Utah LEXIS 55
| Utah | 2015Background
- NES operates group homes for disabled individuals under state contracts; one house (Res 7) frequently had an open door, candy, TV, and a kiddie pool that attracted neighborhood children.
- On July 18, 2008, NES employee Matthew Cooper sexually assaulted minor A.R. after inviting her into Res 7; Cooper pleaded guilty and is imprisoned.
- Plaintiffs (A.R.'s parents) sued Cooper and later added claims against NES for negligent hiring, training, and supervision; Cooper was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant before appeal.
- NES moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no duty owed to A.R. for employee hiring/training/supervision, and (2) plaintiffs needed expert testimony to establish the standard of care; it also sought apportionment to Cooper under Utah’s comparative-fault statute.
- The district court denied summary judgment, ruled expert testimony was not required, and refused apportionment to Cooper for his intentional act; NES appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NES owed a duty to a guest (A.R.) for negligent hiring, training, supervision | Plaintiffs: special relationship under Restatement §317 creates duty to control employee | NES: assault was outside employee’s scope; only omissions so no duty to control third-party conduct | Court: Duty exists under Restatement §317 special-relationship standard; affirm denial of summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiffs had to present expert testimony to establish standard of care | Plaintiffs: standard (background checks, training, supervision) is within lay juror common knowledge | NES: technical or specialized standard requires expert proof | Court: No expert required; standard is for lay jurors; affirm denial |
| Whether Utah Code §78B-5-818 allows apportionment of fault to intentional tortfeasors | Plaintiffs: statute intended for comparative negligence and analogous nonintentional doctrines only | NES: statute’s definition of “fault” includes any act/omission causing injury, so intentional tortfeasors qualify | Court: "Fault" includes any actionable breach, act, or omission proximately causing injury; apportionment may include intentional torts; reverse district court on apportionment |
| Scope of employer liability: vicarious vs. direct liability for employee’s intentional tort | Plaintiffs: NES directly negligent in hiring/supervising (direct liability) irrespective of vicarious scope | NES: scope-of-employment limits impose no direct duty for employee’s independent criminal acts | Court: Distinguishes direct negligence (duty under §317) from vicarious liability; employer can be directly liable for negligent hiring/supervision though employee acted outside scope |
Key Cases Cited
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (clarifies duty analysis and misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction)
- Rollins v. Petersen, 818 P.2d 1156 (Utah 1991) (discusses Restatement special-relationship framework and limits on duty to control third parties)
- Field v. Boyer Co., 952 P.2d 1078 (Utah 1998) (prior splintered opinions on whether comparative-fault statute covers intentional acts)
- Hill v. Superior Property Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 321 P.3d 1054 (Utah 2013) (restricts duty to the scope of the defendant’s voluntary undertaking)
- Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 628 P.2d 1301 (Utah 1981) (construed as background for broadening comparative principles beyond negligence)
- Pearce v. Utah Athletic Found., 179 P.3d 760 (Utah 2008) (standard of care usually a question for lay jurors)