Utah Supreme Court
When does intervening negligence become a superseding cause? Wood v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Explained
Summary
UPS truck damaged a loading dock, loosening bolts securing a heavy vinyl curtain. Over a week later, the curtain fell and injured Wood, a visiting truck driver. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for UPS, finding KNS’s negligent failure to properly repair the dangerous condition was an unforeseeable superseding cause.
Analysis
In Wood v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Utah Supreme Court addressed when an intervening party’s negligence becomes a superseding cause that cuts off the original tortfeasor’s liability. The case provides important guidance on foreseeability analysis in complex causation scenarios.
Background and Facts
A UPS truck crashed into a KNS warehouse loading dock, damaging the concrete and loosening bolts that secured a heavy vinyl curtain weighing 100-140 pounds. A KNS employee attempted repairs by tightening some bolts but could not replace those that had fallen out because the structure was “compromised.” Over a week later, Stuart Wood was injured when the inadequately repaired curtain fell on him. Hours before the accident, KNS’s vice president noticed the curtain hanging at an angle but took no action, believing there was no immediate danger.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether KNS’s intervening negligence constituted a superseding cause that relieved UPS of liability. The court applied the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 447 three-part test for determining when intervening negligence is foreseeable and therefore not a superseding cause.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court found that no reasonable jury could conclude KNS’s negligence was foreseeable. Under the Restatement test, the court determined that: (1) UPS should not have realized KNS would fail to properly address an obvious hazard on its own property; (2) a reasonable person would regard KNS’s failure as “highly extraordinary” given KNS’s knowledge, ability, and time to remedy the condition; and (3) KNS’s inadequate response was not a “normal consequence” of building damage. The court emphasized that foreseeability requires predictability, not mere possibility.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that superseding cause analysis must examine the totality of an intervening party’s conduct, not isolated foreseeable acts. Practitioners should focus on whether the third party’s overall response would be considered “highly extraordinary” by a reasonable person. The case also demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant summary judgment on causation issues when the facts clearly support only one reasonable conclusion, despite the general rule that causation is typically a jury question.
Case Details
Case Name
Wood v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Citation
2021 UT 49
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20200052
Date Decided
August 19, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
KNS’s failure to adequately repair a dangerous condition on its property for over a week after UPS’s truck damaged it constituted a superseding cause that cut off UPS’s liability as a matter of law.
Standard of Review
Correctness for court of appeals’ decision on certiorari
Practice Tip
When arguing superseding cause, focus on the totality of the intervening party’s conduct rather than individual foreseeable acts, emphasizing whether a reasonable person would regard the third party’s response as highly extraordinary.
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.