Proctor v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
311 P.3d 564
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 8, 2008, Costco employee Jerryl Holtkamp spilled a stacked set of heavy, base-weighted traffic cones while moving them on a wheel base outside a Murray, Utah Costco.
- Holtkamp asked shopper Robert Proctor to help lift the cones back onto the wheel base; Proctor attempted to lift, felt a shoulder tear, and later underwent surgery for a severed biceps tendon and torn labrum.
- Proctor sued Costco for negligence, alleging five factual components (including assigning Holtkamp an unsuitable task; spilling the cones; asking a non-employee to assist; failing to warn of weight until after lifting; failing to instruct on lifting).
- After Proctor’s case-in-chief, the court granted Costco’s partial directed verdict as to the first two allegations (assignment and spilling), but allowed the remaining allegations to proceed; Proctor later moved to reinstate the spilled-cones allegation after Costco called Holtkamp, and the court refused.
- The jury found for Costco on the remaining claims; Proctor appealed, arguing (1) erroneous partial directed verdict, (2) improper refusal to reinstate an allegation, (3) erroneous denial of his directed verdict motion, and (4) insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Grant of partial directed verdict on allegations that Costco assigned Holtkamp an unsuitable task and that she spilled the cones | Proctor argued the court should have waited until cross-examining Costco witnesses (per pretrial agreement) before ruling; withdrawing of part of Costco’s motion required delay | Costco argued evidence was insufficient as to those allegations and moved for directed verdict | Court held the grant was erroneous procedurally but harmless because those two allegations could not, as a matter of law, be the proximate cause of Proctor’s injury |
| 2) Motion to reinstate the spilled-cones allegation after Holtkamp’s testimony | Proctor argued Costco opened the door to that issue and the court should restore it | Costco contended the testimony did not change the earlier sufficiency ruling | Court denied reinstatement; any error was harmless for the same proximate-cause reason |
| 3) Denial of Proctor’s motion for directed verdict on remaining allegations (asking non-employee to help; failure to warn/instruct) | Proctor claimed Costco effectively admitted liability (e.g., supervisors said asking customers to help was wrong) and directed verdict was required | Costco argued those admissions only reflected internal policy; whether breach occurred was a jury question given conflicting testimony about warning/instruction | Court affirmed denial because reasonable minds could disagree; factual disputes (e.g., whether Holtkamp warned/instructed) went to the jury |
| 4) Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury verdict for Costco | Proctor argued evidence preponderated in his favor (Costco had superior knowledge; testified supervisors acknowledged the request was improper) | Costco pointed to testimony that it wasn’t inappropriate under the circumstances, and to Holtkamp’s testimony that she warned and instructed Proctor | Court held the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict; appellate review accepts evidence favorable to the verdict and jurors could credit Costco/Holtkamp |
Key Cases Cited
- Billings v. Union Bankers Ins. Co., 918 P.2d 461 (Utah 1996) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury verdict)
- Webb v. University of Utah, 125 P.3d 906 (Utah 2005) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (U.S. 2011) (discussion of proximate cause limits on liability)
- Dee v. Johnson, 286 P.3d 22 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (when intervening events negate proximate causation as a matter of law)
- Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers, 811 P.2d 182 (Utah 1991) (business duty to exercise due care for invitee safety)
- Holmstrom v. C.R. England, Inc., 8 P.3d 281 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (negligent act is not proximate cause if harm would have occurred absent that act)