Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Of Appeals Oral Argument topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Court of Appeals hears dispute over warnings and causation in bulk-water dispenser injury
Summary
At oral argument the appellants argued Bridal Head Town failed to warn or instruct users of a commercial bulk-water dispenser, creating disputed facts for a jury; the town contended the plaintiff knew the risk and assumed it. The court took the case under advisement.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in an appeal arising from an injury at a bulk-water dispenser installed on town property in Bridal Head Town. Appellant counsel Brad Har said the town failed to warn and to pass on manufacturer or operator instructions for the commercial system, and that those omissions created disputed factual issues that a jury should decide.
"They should have had a sign that said, 'High pressure hose—make sure the valve is turned off,'" Har told the three-judge panel, arguing the dispenser was a permanent fixture on town land and that users were charged for water. Har said depositions and an internal operating memo show town employees knew about potential hazards but did not provide necessary instructions to users.
Gregory Houle, representing Bridal Head Town, told the court the district court correctly treated the material facts as undisputed and that causation rested with the plaintiff. "We did warn Mr. Reith, but the extent of that warning is a matter of disputed fact," Houle said, and he maintained that the plaintiff knew how to turn down an external valve and had on prior occasions used the system without incident.
Houle asked the panel to affirm summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk by failing to follow a known, reasonable alternative: turning the valve to zero before activating the pump. He also emphasized the court’s view of the video evidence, saying it shows the plaintiff losing his balance while holding the hose rather than being lifted bodily by it. "He didn't get picked up by the hose," Houle said.
Appellant counsel countered that missing written manufacturer instructions and variability in system pressure create factual disputes about duty and causation. Har pointed to an instruction in the record he described as: "connect truck fill hose to the water truck," and argued a jury should weigh whether those instructions or an appropriate pressure-reducing device should have been provided or communicated.
The panel questioned both sides about the technical details of the dispenser, including whether the system had internal pressure-reducing valves, whether those settings were transmitted to Bridal Head Town, and whether the system is gravity-fed (so pressure varies by usage and tank level). Counsel referenced an internal municipal memo noting expected pressures "50 to 100 PSI" and a later reported measurement of about "170 PSI," but disagreed about whether those numbers were passed on or were dispositive.
The judges also discussed legal standards, including the duties described in the case law cited by counsel (identified in argument as "Hale," "Hill," and related Restatement-style analyses), and whether the known-or-obvious-danger framework or a failure-to-warn/instruct theory controls liability on these facts.
After extended questioning and argument from both sides the presiding judge thanked counsel and said the court would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision as soon as practicable. The court then recessed.
What happens next: The Court of Appeals will issue a written opinion; counsel and the parties will receive that opinion before any further enforcement or appeals steps.
