Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House narrows civil liability rules in close vote on comparative‑fault bill
Summary
After hours of debate, the Utah House passed House Bill 45 to allow juries to apportion fault between negligent and intentional wrongdoers; supporters said it restores fairness, opponents warned it could reduce victims’ recovery when some wrongdoers lack assets.
The Utah House of Representatives voted to pass House Bill 45 on Jan. 29, sending the comparative‑fault measure to the Senate after an extended floor debate.
The bill, introduced and argued by Representative Wyatt, instructs juries to apportion civil fault between negligent actors and intentional tortfeasors rather than holding a negligent party automatically responsible for the full amount of damages when a separate intentional actor caused most of the harm. “This bill would allow the jury to apportion fault,” Representative Wyatt said in floor remarks summarizing the measure and responding to examples raised by colleagues.
Supporters said the change corrects what they described as an inequity in modern liability practice. Representative Oda told the House the bill restores “a fairness to the issue” by preventing so‑called deep‑pocket defendants from absorbing disproportionate liability solely because other culpable actors lack funds to pay. “Someone who does something intentionally should be held more responsible than someone just acting in simple negligence,” Oda said.
Opponents cautioned that apportioning fault could leave injured parties unable to recover full damages when intentional wrongdoers are uninsured or insolvent. Representative McKiff argued the bill could let multiple intentional actors “hide behind each other,” reducing available remedies for victims. Representative Moss raised concerns about cases such as violent assaults where she feared a negligent party (for example, a hotel) might avoid meaningful responsibility for serious harms.
Lawmakers debated hypothetical situations—ranging from a stolen car used in a damaging crash to sexual‑abuse cases—to illustrate trajectories under the existing law versus the bill’s approach. Proponents cited comparable statutes in surrounding states and California’s experience since 1975; opponents, including some who referenced recent Utah Supreme Court commentary, urged a more deliberate compromise.
In the final tally the House recorded 48 yes votes, 22 no votes, and 5 members absent. The bill’s sponsor urged the Senate to consider the policy as a clarification of intent from past Liability Reform Act discussions.
What happens next: House Bill 45 will be transmitted to the Utah Senate for consideration. Floor debate concluded with members divided on whether the bill strikes the right balance between victim recovery and proportional allocation of fault.
