When does a watercraft owner's silence create implied consent for minor operators? Bearden v. Croft Explained

In Bearden v. Croft, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question of watercraft owner liability under Utah Code section 73-18-18 when a minor operates a vessel and causes injury. The court’s decision highlights the factual complexity of determining implied consent in owner liability cases.

Background and Facts

Plaintiff Cody Bearden was injured when 13-year-old Brian Golsan, operating a Waverunner owned by defendant Wayne Croft, collided with him at Deer Creek State Park. Croft had loaned two Waverunners to Vandee Bearden (Cody’s father) in exchange for cement work. When Vandee picked up the vessels, Croft began explaining their operation, but Vandee interrupted, saying he wouldn’t operate them and that “my kids know how to operate them.” Croft made no response to this statement. At the reservoir, Vandee allowed both his adult son Cody and minor Brian Golsan to operate the Waverunners.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Golsan operated the Waverunner with Croft’s express or implied consent under Utah Code section 73-18-18, which imposes vicarious liability on vessel owners for injuries caused by minors operating their watercraft with the owner’s permission. The trial court granted summary judgment for Croft, concluding as a matter of law that no consent existed.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that whether Croft gave implied consent was a question of fact for the jury. The court noted that Croft’s silence in response to Vandee’s statement about “my kids” operating the Waverunners could reasonably be interpreted various ways. While Golsan was not Vandee’s biological child, the ambiguous reference to “kids” and Croft’s failure to limit who could operate the vessels created a genuine factual dispute about the scope of any implied consent.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that implied consent determinations typically require factual development rather than legal conclusions. Practitioners should gather detailed evidence about conversations, circumstances, and relationships when establishing or defending against owner liability claims. The court’s analysis shows that ambiguous statements and owner silence can create triable issues, making summary judgment inappropriate in many consent cases.