Does Utah's Liability Reform Act eliminate strict liability for passive retailers? Bylsma v. R.C. Willey Explained

Background and Facts

Melinda Bylsma purchased a reclining massage chair from R.C. Willey as a gift for her husband Richard. Instead of providing relaxation, the chair’s massage attachment crushed Richard’s right foot. The Bylsmas sued both R.C. Willey and Human Touch (the manufacturer), asserting claims for strict products liability, breach of warranty, and contract rescission against the retailer.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Utah’s Liability Reform Act (LRA) creates immunity for “passive retailers” from products liability claims when the manufacturer is also named in the suit. R.C. Willey moved to dismiss the tort and warranty claims based on the court of appeals decision in Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, which established the passive retailer doctrine. The Bylsmas challenged this doctrine as incompatible with the LRA and their constitutional rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court rejected the passive retailer doctrine and overruled Sanns. The court held that the LRA specifically preserves strict products liability by including it within the definition of “fault.” The legislature intended to eliminate joint and several liability but not to immunize retailers from liability. Under traditional strict products liability doctrine, all sellers in the distribution chain—manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers—are equally strictly liable for selling defective products, regardless of their role in creating the defect.

The court explained that strict liability is “liability without fault” in the culpability sense, focusing on the duty not to sell a defective product. The LRA requires apportionment of fault based on “relative causation” rather than culpability when comparing strictly liable defendants. Multiple defendants who breach the same duty should be treated as a single unit for fault allocation purposes.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts products liability practice in Utah. Retailers can no longer seek dismissal simply because a manufacturer is named in the suit. The court preserved the right of implied indemnity, allowing retailers to seek reimbursement from manufacturers in separate proceedings. For practitioners, this means careful attention to fault apportionment strategies and consideration of indemnity claims when representing retailers. The decision also clarifies attorney fee analysis under reciprocal fee statutes, requiring courts to focus on individual claims covered by fee-shifting provisions rather than making global assessments across all claims.