Rodriguez v. Kroger Co.
2018 UT 25
| Utah | 2018Background
- Gloria Rodriguez slipped on a puddle of soapy water in a Smith’s grocery store and sued Smith’s, J&I Maintenance (janitorial contractor), and the individual cleaner Galeno. Rodriguez settled with Galeno before trial.
- At trial the jury apportioned fault: 75% to Galeno, 5% to Smith’s, 0% to J&I, and 20% to Rodriguez.
- Rodriguez asked the court to enter judgment making Smith’s (and J&I) liable for Galeno’s 75% share under the nondelegable duty doctrine; the district court refused and entered judgment for Smith’s only for 5% of damages.
- The district court awarded Rodriguez 5% of her taxed costs; Rodriguez appealed both the liability ruling and the costs award.
- The Utah Supreme Court held Smith’s liable for the 75% attributable to Galeno (plus its own 5%), reversed the district court as to Smith’s liability and remanded to enter judgment for 80% of damages, affirmed the district court as to J&I (no evidence J&I assumed the nondelegable duty), and vacated the costs award for redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s is liable for damages caused by independent contractor (Galeno) under the nondelegable duty doctrine | Rodriguez: Smith’s has a nondelegable duty to keep premises safe, so Smith’s must pay for Galeno’s negligence in addition to its own | Smith’s: Liability Reform Act (LRA) limits recovery to each defendant’s allocated fault; cannot shift Galeno’s share to Smith’s | Held: Nondelegable duty is vicarious/pass‑along liability and escapes LRA fault caps; Smith’s is liable for Galeno’s 75% plus its 5% (total 80%). |
| Whether J&I is liable for Galeno’s 75% under a stipulation or assumption of Smith’s duty | Rodriguez: Jury Instruction and stipulation show J&I assumed Smith’s nondelegable duty and thus is liable for Galeno | J&I: No stipulation that it assumed Smith’s nondelegable duty; LRA/absence of evidence preclude reallocating Galeno’s share to J&I | Held: Instruction did not show J&I assumed the duty and Rodriguez offered no other adequate argument; judgment for J&I affirmed. |
| Whether taxed litigation costs must be allocated in proportion to fault under the LRA | Rodriguez: Trial court reduced her costs award to 5% mirroring fault allocation; this was erroneous | Defendants: Costs should track fault allocation (district court acted accordingly) | Held: Costs are distinct from damages and need not be apportioned by LRA; remanded for redetermination of costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.J. v. Wisan, 371 P.3d 21 (2016) (Utah) (respondeat superior/pass‑along liability escapes LRA because it is not based on defendant's personal fault)
- Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers, 811 P.2d 182 (1991) (Utah) (landowners must exercise due care to keep premises safe for invitees)
- Magana v. Dave Roth Construction, 215 P.3d 143 (2009) (Utah) (general rule that employer of independent contractor is not liable for contractor's negligent acts)
- Sullivan v. Utah Gas Service Co., 353 P.2d 465 (1960) (Utah) (landowner liable for independent contractor's negligence as if its own under nondelegable duties)
- Smith v. Town of Greenwich, 899 A.2d 563 (2006) (Conn.) (nondelegable duty imposes full liability on property owner despite apportionment statutes)
- Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 48 P.3d 218 (2002) (Utah) (distinguishing contexts where LRA preempts respondeat superior reallocation)
- Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 252 P.3d 365 (2011) (Utah Ct. App.) (definition and effect of nondelegable duty in employer/independent contractor context)