When can retailers avoid strict liability for defective products in Utah? Yirak v. Dan's Super Markets, Inc. Explained

Background and Facts

Marlene Yirak purchased a prepackaged salad from Dan’s Super Markets and allegedly found glass in the product, leading to injury. Yirak sued Dan’s under the Utah Product Liability Act, claiming the store was strictly liable for selling a defective product. Dan’s moved for summary judgment, arguing it qualified for the passive retailer exception because it merely sold the prepackaged salad without participating in its manufacture, design, or inspection. The manufacturer, Dole, was also named as a defendant but Yirak did not appeal the dismissal of claims against Dole.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Dan’s qualified for the passive retailer exception to strict liability under the Utah Product Liability Act. Under this exception, established in Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, a retailer cannot be held strictly liable if it does not “participate in the design, manufacture, engineering, testing, or assembly” of a product and the manufacturer is a named party to the action.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dan’s. The court found that Dan’s successfully demonstrated its status as a passive retailer through an affidavit from its store director stating that Dan’s did not manufacture, design, repackage, label, or inspect the prepackaged salads. Crucially, Yirak failed to present any evidence contradicting this passive role. Despite over a year of discovery, Yirak could not show that Dan’s opened the package, knew about the glass, or took any action beyond passive retail sales.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the viability of the passive retailer defense in Utah product liability cases. Retailers should document their limited role in the product chain, ensuring they can demonstrate they did not participate in manufacturing, design, or inspection activities. Plaintiffs challenging this defense must present concrete evidence of the retailer’s active participation in the product’s creation or modification to survive summary judgment.