Utah Supreme Court
When can property owners be held liable for fires started by independent contractors? Poteet v. White Explained
Summary
Poteet sued White for negligence after a fire spread from White’s property to Poteet’s sawmill. Poteet claimed White’s independent contractor Green set the fire, but Green denied any involvement in the Winter 2002 fire that caused the damage. The district court granted summary judgment for White.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Poteet v. White, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a property owner could be held vicariously liable for fire damage allegedly caused by an independent contractor. The case provides important guidance on vicarious liability and the evidentiary requirements for surviving summary judgment in tort claims.
Background and Facts
William White hired Rick Green as an independent contractor to clean his property near Escalante, Utah. As part of the cleanup, Green burned debris piles, including fires in late 2000/early 2001 and fall 2001. In winter 2002, another fire occurred on White’s property that later spread to Greg Poteet’s sawmill across the county road, causing damage. Poteet alleged Green set this winter 2002 fire, but Green denied any involvement, stating he was working at the Winter Olympics during that period.
Key Legal Issues
The case centered on whether White could be held vicariously liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 427, 427A, and 427B, which impose liability on those who employ independent contractors for inherently dangerous, abnormally dangerous, or trespass-likely work. The threshold issue was whether admissible evidence supported Poteet’s claim that Green caused the damage.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment without addressing the Restatement sections, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation. Poteet’s evidence consisted of inadmissible hearsay statements and ambiguous deposition testimony that could not establish Green set the damaging fire. The court emphasized that Rule 56(e) requires factual disputes to be supported by admissible evidence, not pleading allegations or hearsay.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the critical importance of developing admissible evidence to survive summary judgment motions. Practitioners must ensure factual disputes are supported by proper sworn testimony, depositions, or admissions rather than hearsay or counsel’s characterizations of testimony. The court’s approach also demonstrates how threshold factual issues can resolve cases without reaching complex legal doctrine questions.
Case Details
Case Name
Poteet v. White
Citation
2006 UT 63
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050368
Date Decided
October 20, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A property owner cannot be held vicariously liable for fire damage caused by an independent contractor when undisputed evidence establishes the contractor did not set the fire that caused the damage.
Standard of Review
De novo for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment, ensure all factual disputes are supported by admissible evidence under Rule 56(e) rather than inadmissible hearsay or unverified characterizations of deposition testimony.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.