Can a construction worker be considered an agent of another contractor? Sutton v. Miles Explained

In Sutton v. Miles, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a construction worker helping another contractor could be considered that contractor’s agent or employee for purposes of a liability release. The case highlights the complexity of determining agency relationships in construction settings and the importance of specificity in release agreements.

Background and Facts

E.J. Sutton worked for R.W. Construction while Bob Miles worked for Byer Excavating, both as subcontractors on adjacent construction projects. When Lowell Construction needed help unloading rebar at its site, its superintendent asked Sutton to enlist Miles’s assistance. While moving rebar with his trackhoe, Miles accidentally dropped it on Sutton, causing serious injuries. Sutton later signed a release discharging Lowell Construction and “all of [its] agents, employees, representatives” from liability. When Sutton sued Miles individually, Miles claimed the release protected him as Lowell’s agent or employee.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Miles’s status as Lowell’s agent or employee. For an agency relationship to exist, three elements must be present: (1) the principal’s manifestation of intent for the agent to act on its behalf, (2) the agent’s consent to so act, and (3) both parties’ understanding that the agent is subject to the principal’s control.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

While the court found Lowell manifested intent for Miles to act on its behalf by requesting assistance, disputed facts existed regarding the other elements. Miles testified he helped only because Sutton, whom he considered his boss, told him to—not because he intended to act for Lowell. Evidence also disputed whether Lowell had the right to control Miles’s work methods, with testimony indicating Sutton remained in charge of the unloading operation and that Lowell provided no specific instructions. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding these factual disputes precluded determining Miles’s status as a matter of law.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that temporary assistance between contractors doesn’t automatically create agency relationships. Courts will examine the specific facts surrounding control, consent, and the parties’ understanding of their relationship. For practitioners drafting releases, the case underscores the importance of specifically naming intended beneficiaries rather than relying solely on generic categories, as the concurring opinion noted that Miles wasn’t identified with sufficient specificity under Utah Code Section 78B-5-822.