Utah Court of Appeals

Can a hiking leader be liable for damages caused by other group members? Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Parker Explained

1997 UT App
No. 960236-CA
April 3, 1997
Reversed

Summary

David Parker led a group of friends on a recreational climbing trip when another climber dislodged rocks that damaged a passing motorist’s vehicle. The trial court held Parker 100% liable based on joint enterprise theory and his failure to join other parties. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no joint enterprise existed without pecuniary interest.

Practice Areas & Topics

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a hiking party leader can be held vicariously liable for damages caused by other group members in Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Parker. This case provides important guidance on the limits of joint enterprise liability in recreational settings.

Background and Facts: David Parker, an experienced climber, led three friends on a climbing expedition in Big Cottonwood Canyon. While crossing a rock slide area above the canyon road, another climber accidentally dislodged rocks that rolled onto the road below. A motorist struck one of the rocks, causing $2,746.47 in vehicle damage. Farmers Insurance sued Parker for the full amount, claiming he was liable as the expedition leader.

Key Legal Issues: The case presented two primary questions: (1) whether Parker could be held vicariously liable under joint enterprise theory for the negligence of other climbers, and (2) whether Utah’s Liability Reform Act required fault apportionment even when other parties weren’t joined in the lawsuit.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no joint enterprise existed. The court emphasized that joint enterprise liability requires four elements, including “a community of pecuniary interest in that purpose.” Because the hiking trip was purely recreational with no money exchanged or expected, this essential element was missing. The court distinguished commercial ventures from “pleasurable adventures” among friends, noting that mere leadership of a recreational group does not create vicarious liability.

Practice Implications: This decision reinforces that Utah courts will not impose joint enterprise liability in non-commercial recreational activities. The court’s reliance on similar decisions from sister jurisdictions demonstrates this principle’s broad acceptance. Additionally, the court confirmed that Utah’s Liability Reform Act prohibits holding defendants liable beyond their proportionate fault, even when other potentially liable parties aren’t joined in the lawsuit.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Parker

Citation

1997 UT App

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 960236-CA

Date Decided

April 3, 1997

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A hiking party leader cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of other party members absent the pecuniary interest element required for joint enterprise liability.

Standard of Review

Not specified

Practice Tip

When defending against joint enterprise liability claims, emphasize the absence of any business or pecuniary relationship between parties engaged in purely recreational activities.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Utah Local Government Trust v. Wheeler Machinery Co.

    December 29, 2006

    Summary judgment was inappropriate where admissible evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a contractor was acting as an agent when modifying equipment that later caused a fire.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Van Huizen

    January 7, 2019

    Preservation rules apply to all claims, including claims of judicial bias, and a litigant must show that an exception to preservation applies when raising an unpreserved claim for the first time on appeal.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
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.