Utah Supreme Court
When must scope of employment questions go to a jury in Utah? Newman v. White Water Whirlpool Explained
Summary
Employee Sundquist, while driving to his employer’s offices carrying materials in his personal truck, collided with Newman causing serious injuries and death. The trial court granted summary judgment finding Sundquist was merely commuting under the coming and going rule, but the court of appeals reversed.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Newman v. White Water Whirlpool, employee Bradley Sundquist was driving to his employer’s offices at 5:00 a.m. when he collided with Kenneth Newman, causing serious injuries and death. Sundquist worked as an installer for White Water Whirlpool and was required to travel daily from his Salt Lake County home to the company’s Utah County offices to pick up materials and job assignments. On the morning of the accident, Sundquist was transporting unused materials from a previous job in his personal truck, which he routinely did to avoid making extra trips.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Sundquist was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident or whether he was merely commuting to work under the coming and going rule. The parties also disputed whether the invited error doctrine precluded Newman from arguing that scope of employment was a jury question after both parties had represented to the trial court that no material factual disputes existed.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied the three-part Birkner test for determining scope of employment, emphasizing that such determinations are “inherently fact bound.” The Court held that summary judgment is proper only when the employee’s activity is so clearly within or outside the scope of employment that reasonable minds cannot differ. Here, reasonable minds could differ about whether Sundquist was returning materials to the employer—an act within his employment duties—or merely commuting. The Court rejected the invited error argument, noting that while parties agreed on subsidiary facts, they disagreed on the ultimate factual determination of scope of employment.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that scope of employment questions typically present jury issues in Utah. Practitioners should carefully evaluate whether an employee’s activities could reasonably be viewed as serving the employer’s interests, even during apparent commuting time. The case also clarifies that cross-motions for summary judgment do not automatically entitle either party to judgment as a matter of law—trial courts must independently assess whether genuine issues of material fact exist.
Case Details
Case Name
Newman v. White Water Whirlpool
Citation
2008 UT 79
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20070859
Date Decided
November 14, 2008
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Summary judgment is improper when reasonable minds could differ about whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of an accident.
Standard of Review
Correctness
Practice Tip
When moving for summary judgment on scope of employment issues, carefully analyze whether the employee’s activities could reasonably be viewed as serving the employer’s interests rather than mere commuting.
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.