Madsen v. Beacon Roofing Supply
2024 UT App 177
| Utah Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Eleven-year-old Michael was struck and killed by a commercial roofing truck driven by Cope while crossing a marked crosswalk with an illuminated "Walk" signal at a busy intersection in Pleasant Grove, Utah, after a movie.
- Michael’s parents and the parents of his friends ("Parents") sued Cope and his employer for wrongful death and related negligence claims.
- At trial, the key evidence included eyewitness descriptions, expert testimony on visibility and traffic signals, and surveillance videos showing Michael's conduct before the collision.
- The trial was bifurcated: the first phase addressed whether Cope was negligent; the jury found Cope not negligent.
- The Parents moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing undisputed evidence showed Cope breached duties owed to Michael; the district court granted their motion and conditionally granted a new trial in the event of reversal.
- Cope appealed, arguing the verdict should stand and that the district court erred in setting it aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cope negligent as a matter of law in operating his vehicle? | Cope violated multiple duties: failed to keep lookout, yield, or drive prudently. | Cope couldn't see the boys due to darkness/blind spots and did not breach duty. | Yes; undisputed evidence showed Cope breached his duties. |
| Was the jury verdict supported by sufficient evidence? | Evidence contradicted verdict; no facts supported finding of no negligence. | Substantial evidence allowed finding in Cope's favor. | No; verdict unsupported by evidence or law. |
| Did complexities at the intersection mitigate Cope’s duty? | Complexities/obstructions increased Cope's duty to drive carefully, not lessen it. | Location, darkness, and truck blind spots excused his failure to see. | No; these increased Cope’s duty of care. |
| Should judgment as a matter of law be granted? | Undisputed facts show breach of duty and causation warranting judgment as a matter of law. | Jury verdict entitled to deference; reasonable minds could differ. | Yes; facts required finding of at least some negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425 (Utah 1998) (explains driver’s duty to see what is there to be seen)
- Charvoz v. Cottrell, 361 P.2d 516 (Utah 1961) (duty to yield arises if driver should have seen pedestrian in time)
- Martin v. Stevens, 243 P.2d 747 (Utah 1952) (driver is negligent as matter of law if he failed to see what was there to be seen)
- Phillips v. Tooele City Corp., 500 P.2d 669 (Utah 1972) (failure to keep a proper lookout can constitute negligence as a matter of law)
- Benson v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 286 P.2d 790 (Utah 1952) (not noticing obvious hazards is negligence as a matter of law)