Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Natural Choice tells Utah Court of Appeals it lacked notice of vicarious-liability claim
Loading...
Summary
At oral argument in Coombs v. Natural Choice, counsel for Natural Choice argued the landowners never pleaded a vicarious-liability claim tied to Sam Kingston and that discovery disclosures do not substitute for the complaint's required factual allegations; the court pressed both sides on waiver, trial-by-consent, and procedural timing.
Freya Johnson, counsel for Natural Choice, told the Utah Court of Appeals that the landowners never pleaded a claim that would allow the jury to hold Natural Choice vicariously liable for the actions of Samuel Kingston.
"This case stems from a trial over damages caused by fire," Johnson said as she outlined the trial's two phases — liability and compensatory damages followed by a punitive-damages phase — and explained that Natural Choice's second assigned error challenged the district court's decision to let the jury consider an unpleaded vicarious-liability theory.
Johnson urged the panel to look to the four corners of the operative complaint and not to treat discovery or other filings as a substitute for pleading. She argued that even if evidence introduced at trial made it appear an individual acted for Natural Choice, that does not alter the pleading requirements that trigger notice, discovery scope, and the chance to seek amendment.
Judges pressed Johnson with follow-up questions about the parties' discovery conduct and earlier disclosures — depositions and corporate-representative designations that identified Sam Kingston — and whether those facts created a waiver or a trial-by-consent situation. Johnson responded that Natural Choice filed a timely objection to the proposed jury instruction within the court's stipulated deadlines and that the district court nonetheless addressed the objection on the merits.
Jonathan Grover, counsel for the landowners, replied that the complaint alleged wrongful acts by defendants, their agents and employees and that disclosures during discovery (including a 30(b)(6) designation and deposition testimony) put Natural Choice on notice that Sam Kingston was at issue. "Sam Kingston was exposed to us by Natural Choice as an employee," Grover said, noting that counsel relied on those disclosures when pursuing targeted discovery and preparing jury instructions months before trial.
Bench questioning focused on procedural brakes and balances: whether an amendment would have been timely, whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the issue to be tried despite objections, and whether any resulting prejudice could have been cured by an order granting leave to amend and reopening discovery. Counsel disagreed on whether those remedies would have been practical on the eve of trial.
The panel took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a written opinion when able. The court also acknowledged overlap with a separate appeal involving related parties and facts and reserved the possibility that reversal in one appeal could affect proceedings in the other.
The court did not rule from the bench.
