Summary
The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed a summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising from a minor's negligent operation of a Waverunner. The court held that the record presented a factual question regarding whether the vessel owner gave the minor implied consent under Utah Code section 73-18-18 and reversed and remanded. Separate opinions concurred in the result or dissented, including disagreement over the statute's applicability to a subpermittee operator.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Golsan operated Croft's Waverunner with Croft's express or implied consent under Utah Code section 73-18-18.
- Whether the Utah vessel-owner liability statute, as a matter of law, excludes liability when a minor operates a vessel as a subpermittee or third party authorized by the direct permittee.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because the evidence presented a genuine factual question concerning the existence and scope of Croft's implied consent to operation of the Waverunners by minors, including whether the phrase "my kids" encompassed Golsan.
- The court declined to decide whether a permittee may designate a subpermittee whose negligent operation would impose liability on the vessel owner, because that issue was premature before the fact finder determined whether Croft gave express or implied consent and the scope of that consent.
Key quotations
“Because Croft made no response to Bearden's statement as to who would be operating the Waverunners, a factual question is presented as to the scope of Croft's implied consent.” (31 P.3d at 541)
“There is no formula which will aid the courts in deciding whether a motor vehicle was operated with the implied permission or consent of the owner, but it is rather a question of fact for the jury, unless the evidence is such that only one reasonable conclusion is deductible therefrom.” (31 P.3d at 541)
Factual background
Vandee Bearden performed cement work for Croft in exchange for use of Croft's two Waverunners. When Vandee picked them up, he told Croft that he would not operate them and that his children knew how to operate them; Croft did not respond or limit who could operate the vessels. At a state park, Vandee allowed his adult son Cody and thirteen-year-old Brian Golsan, a friend of the children, to operate the Waverunners, and Golsan collided with Cody, breaking Cody's hip.
Procedural history
Cody Bearden sued Wayne Croft and Brian Golsan after Golsan, a minor, collided with Bearden while operating a Waverunner owned by Croft. Croft moved for summary judgment; the trial court initially denied the motion but, four days before trial, reconsidered it sua sponte, vacated its prior order, and granted summary judgment for Croft. The Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded for factual determinations concerning the existence and scope of Croft's implied consent.
Remand instructions
Remand for the trier of fact to determine the existence and scope of any express or implied consent by Croft to operation of the Waverunners by the minor operator.