Can a previously unconstitutional Utah statute become valid through recodification? Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co. Explained

In Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co., the Utah Supreme Court addressed two critical certified questions that significantly impact products liability practice in Utah: whether a previously void statute can regain constitutional validity and how Utah handles enhanced injury claims in the absence of joint and several liability.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a tragic car accident involving Jerad and Emily Egbert. Emily, eight months pregnant, was ejected through a tempered glass window during a rollover crash and suffered severe injuries requiring an emergency C-section. Their daughter was born with serious brain injuries. The Egberts sued Nissan, claiming the passenger window was defectively designed because it used tempered rather than laminated glass, which would have acted as a secondary restraint mechanism.

Key Legal Issues

The federal district court certified two questions: First, whether Utah Code section 78-15-6(3) was constitutional despite being previously declared void in Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp. due to the Utah Product Liability Act’s nonseverability. Second, whether Utah recognizes section 16(b)-(d) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability regarding burden of proof in enhanced injury cases.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held section 78-15-6(3) constitutional, reasoning that while the statute became void after Berry, it was effectively revived through two mechanisms: (1) twenty years of consistent judicial application created a common law rule, and (2) the 2008 legislative recodification and revision of Title 78 constituted proper constitutional enactment. The court rejected implied validation theories, emphasizing that clear legislative action is required to revive void statutes.

Regarding enhanced injury claims, the court declined to adopt either the Fox-Mitchell approach (favoring plaintiffs with burden-shifting) or the Huddell-Caiazzo approach (requiring plaintiff proof of apportionment). Instead, the court created a Utah-specific rule requiring fault apportionment in all cases, even for traditionally indivisible injuries, consistent with Utah’s abolition of joint and several liability.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts products liability practice in Utah. Attorneys must prepare evidence for specific fault allocation between defendants, even in complex enhanced injury cases involving seemingly indivisible harm. The ruling clarifies that Utah’s comparative fault regime applies universally, preventing defendants from escaping liability through joint and several liability theories while also preventing plaintiffs from recovering full damages from any single defendant without proving specific enhancement.