Bihlmaier v. Carson
| Decision Date | 02 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 16301,16301 |
| Citation | 603 P.2d 790 |
| Parties | 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4305 Fred H. BIHLMAIER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lee A. CARSON, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Brian C. Harrison, Provo, for plaintiff and appellant.
Phillip V. Christensen, Provo, for defendant and respondent.
The plaintiff, Fred H. Bihlmaier, appeals the District Court's Order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm. All statutory references are to Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended.
The Defendant, Lee A. Carson, hereinafter Carson, is the founder and present manager of a small grocery store in Provo, Utah. Because of his advanced age and the desire to spend more time vacationing with his wife, the defendant sought a qualified individual to become the acting manager of the store.
Following extended negotiations between himself and Carson, the plaintiff left his previous job in California and accepted employment with the defendant. Due to his managerial experience and other qualifications, the plaintiff was hired by Carson as the prospective manager of the Provo store.
In his deposition, Carson explained, while the plaintiff was hired as the store manager, his continued employment and the assumption of complete managerial duties was conditioned upon the plaintiff's activities during a "trial period."
Shortly after his arrival in Utah and his beginning employment with the defendant, the plaintiff tried to purchase a house. His initial loan application was refused because Carson answered a question on the application form concerning the applicant's probability of continued employment with the statement; "continued employment depends upon applicant hired on a trial basis only."
The plaintiff considered the defendant's refusal to change this statement a constructive discharge and breach of the oral employment contract. Thereafter the plaintiff terminated his employment with the defendant and initiated this suit to recover his alleged damages. The District Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.
A summary judgment must be supported by evidence, admissions and inferences which when viewed in the light most favorable to the losing side establishes "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 1
Under the facts as presented in the depositions of the two parties, the final oral employment contract contained no express terms concerning the duration of the plaintiff's employment. 2 Rather, the evidence indicates that both parties intended the employment to be indefinite and terminable at the will of either party. The plaintiff explained in his deposition:
Q Was there any agreement as to how long you would be employed with Mr. Carson?
A Other than I was hired as a store manager, no, no specific time.
Q There was no specific time at all, was there?
A No. That is correct.
Q So you did understand and agree that your employment was for no definite period of time and might be terminated at any time without previous notice. Isn't that right?
A Yes, I think that's fair, . . . .
The general rule concerning personal employment contracts is, in the absence of some further express or implied stipulation as to the duration of the employment or of a good consideration in addition to the services contracted to be rendered, the contract is no more than an indefinite general hiring which is terminable at the will of either party. 3 The evidence presented in support of the summary judgment motion shows this was the express intent and understanding of the contracting parties.
When an individual is hired for an indefinite time, he has no right of action against his employer for breach of the employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop
...time, he has no right of action against his employer for breach of the employment contract upon being discharged. Bihlmaier v. Carson, 603 P.2d 790, 792 (Utah 1979). Plaintiffs do not assert that they were anything more than employees at will. Rather, they ask this court to follow the trend......
-
Macarthur v. San Juan County
...v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49, 53-55 (Utah 1991); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1044 (Utah 1989); Bihlmaier v. Carson, 603 P.2d 790, 792 (Utah 1979)). [W]hen a contract for employment or personal services does not recite a fixed term, the law in Utah does not call for the......
- Gregory v. Shurtleff
-
Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.
...was adopted, Utah law allowed an employer to fire an at-will employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. See Bihlmaier v. Carson, 603 P.2d 790 (Utah 1979). Thus, the statute serves to protect employees or potential employees from termination where the employer informs them of th......
-
Utah Employment Law After Berube: the Demise of the At-will Doctrine?
...criticism could apply equally to the implied contract claim recognized in Berube. --------- Notes: [1] 104 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1989). [2] 603 P.2d 790 (Utah 1979). [3] Id. at 792. [4] Id. [5] Rose v. Allied Development Co., 719 P.2d 83 (Utah 1986); Bruno v. Plateau Mining Co., 747 P.2d 1055 (......
-
Utah Employment Law Since Berube
...of this article, and to Robert Wilde for his contribution of the final section entitled Employers' Torts. [1] See Bihlmaier v. Carson, 603 P.2d 790, 792 (Utah 1979) (holding that employee hired for indefinite term holds no right of action against employer for at-will discharge). [2] Berube,......