## Facts

- Kenneth Ray Sullivan worked at the Freeport Center unloading grain from rail cars into warehouses.
- In October 1986, Sullivan suffered catastrophic injuries in an accident on railroad tracks, losing his left arm and left leg.
- Sullivan sued multiple entities, including his employers (the Scoular parties), railroad companies, a power company, and equipment entities.
- The federal district court dismissed the Scoular parties based on workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy immunity.
- The federal district court also dismissed Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad after determining it owed no legal duty to Sullivan.
- With remaining defendants still in the case, Trackmobile sought to have the jury allocate comparative fault among all originally named defendants, including the immune employer and the dismissed railroad; Sullivan argued allocation should be limited to defendants at trial.

## Issues

1. Under Utah’s comparative fault statutes, may a jury allocate fault to an employer whose tort liability is barred by workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy immunity?
2. Under Utah’s comparative fault statutes, may a jury allocate fault to an entity dismissed from the case based on an adjudication on the merits that it has no legal fault (e.g., no duty as a matter of law)?

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court answered certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
- The court held that a jury may allocate fault to the plaintiff’s employer even though the employer is immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The court held that an entity dismissed pursuant to an adjudication on the merits of liability (a determination of no legal fault) may not be included for fault allocation.
- The court did not decide whether fault may be allocated to nonparties excluded for reasons other than a merits-based dismissal (e.g., settlement, limitations, or failure of service).

## Legal Principles

- Utah’s comparative fault scheme requires allocation of relative fault so that no defendant is liable for damages exceeding the percentage of fault attributable to that defendant.
- Workers’ compensation immunity bars tort recovery against the employer but does not prevent the employer’s causal fault from being considered in allocating fault among other defendants.
- Allocating fault to an immune employer does not impose civil liability on the employer; it functions only to limit each defendant’s payment to its own proportionate share.
- A party dismissed on the merits because it lacks legal fault (including dismissal for lack of duty) cannot be placed on the verdict form for allocation of fault.
- Excluding a merits-dismissed, fault-free entity from allocation does not expose remaining defendants to damages exceeding their own proportionate fault.

## Conclusion

The court required comparative fault allocation to include an immune employer whose conduct may have contributed to the injury, ensuring each defendant pays only its own share, but barred allocation to an entity dismissed on the merits as not legally at fault.


Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah, 853 P.2d 877 (Utah 1993)