Can the unsafe route doctrine establish negligence for motor vehicle drivers in Utah? Holmstrom v. C.R. England Explained

In Holmstrom v. C.R. England, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the unsafe route doctrine can be applied to establish negligence for motor vehicle drivers, ultimately concluding it cannot.

Background and Facts

Joseph Hyatt was driving a semi-tractor for C.R. England when he made a right turn at a T-intersection, causing his truck to protrude into the westbound lane where Holmstrom was traveling. Despite stopping when he saw her approaching, Holmstrom’s vehicle struck his truck. Evidence showed Holmstrom was driving in the center of the road through an S-curve, glanced at her instrument panel just before the collision, and was positioned left of center at impact. The jury found Hyatt negligent but determined his negligence was not the proximate cause of Holmstrom’s injuries.

Key Legal Issues

Holmstrom sought a jury instruction allowing the jury to find Hyatt negligent for selecting an unsafe route. She also challenged the trial court’s denial of her motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and new trial, arguing insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding on proximate cause.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court conducted an extensive survey of unsafe route doctrine applications nationwide and found it had been applied exclusively to plaintiff-pedestrians in contributory negligence contexts. The doctrine allows a finding that a person who voluntarily chooses a dangerous path over a safe path is contributorily negligent. However, no jurisdiction had applied it to establish defendant-driver negligence in motor vehicle cases. The court noted the doctrine has “narrow scope” and rejected Holmstrom’s attempt to extend it beyond its established parameters.

Regarding the JNOV motion, the court emphasized that negligence and proximate cause are “separate and distinct factors” in tort liability. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that Hyatt’s negligence did not play a substantial role in causing the accident, as testimony indicated the collision would likely have occurred even if Hyatt had remained entirely in his own lane due to Holmstrom’s position and inattentiveness.

Practice Implications

This decision confirms that Utah follows the majority rule limiting unsafe route doctrine to pedestrian contributory negligence cases. Practitioners should not attempt to use this doctrine to establish driver negligence in motor vehicle accidents. The case also demonstrates that comprehensive standard jury instructions on driver duties typically subsume more specific theories of negligence, making specialized instructions unnecessary.