Utah Supreme Court
Can employers be liable for employees' intentional torts under Utah law? Graves v. North Eastern Services Explained
Summary
A child was sexually assaulted by an employee of North Eastern Services, which provided care for disabled individuals. The parents sued NES for negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The district court denied NES’s summary judgment motion and ruled that fault could not be apportioned to the employee for his intentional conduct.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In a significant ruling affecting employer liability, the Utah Supreme Court in Graves v. North Eastern Services established important precedents for when employers can be held directly liable for employees’ intentional torts and how fault should be allocated in such cases.
Background and Facts
North Eastern Services (NES) operated residential facilities for disabled individuals under state contracts. An NES employee, Matthew Cooper, sexually assaulted a minor child, A.R., at one of these facilities. The facility routinely attracted neighborhood children with candy, television, and a swimming pool. Evidence showed NES failed to conduct proper background checks—Cooper had been previously terminated for similar conduct at another facility. The parents sued NES for negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three critical questions: (1) whether NES owed a duty of care to A.R. regarding employee supervision; (2) whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care; and (3) whether Utah’s comparative fault statute allows apportionment of fault to intentional tortfeasors.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts section 317, which imposes a duty on employers to control employees acting outside their employment scope when: (1) the employee is on premises accessible only through employment, and (2) the employer knows or should know of the ability and necessity to exercise control. The court rejected the argument that expert testimony was required, finding the issues within lay jurors’ common knowledge. Most significantly, the court interpreted Utah’s Liability Reform Act’s definition of “fault” as “any actionable breach of legal duty, act, or omission proximately causing injury” to encompass intentional torts.
Practice Implications
This decision expands employer liability theories and allows defendants to seek fault apportionment against intentional tortfeasors. Employers should implement robust hiring practices, including thorough background checks and reference verification. The ruling also affects litigation strategy in cases involving intentional conduct by employees, as defendants can now pursue comparative fault defenses previously unavailable under Utah law.
Case Details
Case Name
Graves v. North Eastern Services
Citation
2015 UT 28
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20121012
Date Decided
January 30, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 317, employers owe a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training, and supervising employees to prevent intentional harm to third parties, and Utah’s comparative fault statute applies to intentional torts.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment and questions of law reviewed for correctness, affording no deference to the district court’s determination
Practice Tip
When defending negligent supervision claims, consider whether Restatement section 317’s elements are satisfied, including whether the employee was on premises accessible only through employment and whether the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the need for control.
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.