Dahl v. Kerbs Construction Corp.

Utah Supreme Court

Dahl v. Kerbs Construction Corp.

853 P.2d 887, 211 Utah Adv. Rep. 59, 1993 Utah LEXIS 79, 1993 WL 132690

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 28, 1993

Docket910372

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 853 P.2d 887 (Dahl v. Kerbs Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dahl v. Kerbs Construction Corp., 853 P.2d 887, 211 Utah Adv. Rep. 59, 1993 Utah LEXIS 79, 1993 WL 132690 (Utah 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

This appeal arises out of an action by an injured worker, Jodie Dahl, against two independent contractors, Kerbs Construction Corp. and Epstein Construction, Inc. The contractors appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court in which the court ruled that Albertsons, Inc., the allegedly negligent nondefendant employer, could not be included on a special verdict form apportioning comparative negligence among the responsible parties because it was immune from suit by virtue of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act. Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Dahl was employed by Albertsons at its North Salt Lake distribution center. On February 14, 1989, Dahl was injured when she fell over a trench which had been cut into the concrete floor as part of a remodelling project. Albertsons had hired defendant Epstein Construction, Inc., as project manager for the remodelling. Epstein, in turn, had subcontracted with defendant Kerbs Construction Corporation for work that included cutting the trench.

Dahl was awarded workers’ compensation benefits and then brought this negligence action against Epstein and Kerbs. Defendants affirmatively alleged negligence on the part of both Dahl and Albert-sons. Epstein and Kerbs sought to have Albertsons’ name included on the special verdict form so that the jury could apportion the negligence among all allegedly responsible parties. The court initially granted the motion but, upon reconsideration, reversed its previous determination. Epstein and Kerbs, sought permission to take an interlocutory appeal, which was granted, and trial of the matter has been stayed pending our decision.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah, 853 P.2d 877 (Utah 1993). In Sullivan, we held, inter alia, that “[a] jury may apportion the fault of employers under Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-27-38 to -43 notwithstanding their immunity under Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60.” Id., at 884. Consequently, Albertsons should be included on the special verdict form.

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for trial.

HALL, C.J., HOWE, Associate C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

This appeal arises out of an action by an injured worker, Jodie Dahl, against two independent contractors, Kerbs Construction Corp. and Epstein Construction, Inc. The contractors appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court in which the court ruled that Albertsons, Inc., the allegedly negligent nondefendant employer, could not be included on a special verdict form apportioning comparative negligence among the responsible parties because it was immune from suit by virtue of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act. Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Dahl was employed by Albertsons at its North Salt Lake distribution center. On February 14, 1989, Dahl was injured when she fell over a trench which had been cut into the concrete floor as part of a remodelling project. Albertsons had hired defendant Epstein Construction, Inc., as project manager for the remodelling. Epstein, in turn, had subcontracted with defendant Kerbs Construction Corporation for work that included cutting the trench.

Dahl was awarded workers’ compensation benefits and then brought this negligence action against Epstein and Kerbs. Defendants affirmatively alleged negligence on the part of both Dahl and Albert-sons. Epstein and Kerbs sought to have Albertsons’ name included on the special verdict form so that the jury could apportion the negligence among all allegedly responsible parties. The court initially granted the motion but, upon reconsideration, reversed its previous determination. Epstein and Kerbs, sought permission to take an interlocutory appeal, which was granted, and trial of the matter has been stayed pending our decision.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah, 853 P.2d 877 (Utah 1993). In Sullivan, we held, inter alia, that “[a] jury may apportion the fault of employers under Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-27-38 to -43 notwithstanding their immunity under Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60.” Id., at 884. Consequently, Albertsons should be included on the special verdict form.

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for trial.

HALL, C.J., HOWE, Associate C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

853 P.2d 887, 211 Utah Adv. Rep. 59, 1993 Utah LEXIS 79, 1993 WL 132690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahl-v-kerbs-construction-corp-utah-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack