Taylor v. United Homes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 10965,10965 |
| Citation | 21 Utah 2d 304,445 P.2d 140 |
| Parties | d 304 Jack TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNITED HOMES, INC., a corporation, Robert Curtiss, Floyd Tuttle, Derae Broderick, and Boley Realty Company, a corporation, Defendants and Repondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Thomas S. Taylor, Provo, for plaintiff and appellant.
Raymond M. Berry, Salt Lake City, of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Dean W. Payne, Provo, for defendants and respondents.
Appeal from a summary judgment of no cause of action where a 10-year -old girl was killed on private property on which a house was being constructed. Affirmed with no costs awarded.
Although there were a number of defendants named in this action, including the home builder, the general contractor, subcontractors and a real estate outfit, all of whom were granted motions for summary judgment of no cause of action, the thrust of this appeal is directed against the general contractor, Broderick.
The facts are simple: On a day after working hours the deceased, Lisa Taylor, 10 years old, was playing in and around the partially constructed house when she either pushed a partially completed brick wall over or in stepping on it from the second story of the house, fell to her death.
The owner furnished plans and specifications to Broderick, who obtained a building permit from the city, which required a certain type of steel wall ties, which the subcontractors did not employ, using nails instead,--all of which was not within the knowledge of Broderick. There is no question but what the building code either knowingly or inadvertently was violated by the subcontractors.
Plaintiff urges on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment since 1) there were genuine issues of fact, and 2) of law as to Broderick's duty to inspect defects, and 3) as to his right to delegate duties to others with respect to the construction.
It appears to us that the fallacy of all of these contentions is that they have nothing to do with any duty of care to the little girl, concededly a trespasser, after working hours.
This is not a spring-gun case where even a trespasser might recover, since there was not a spring gun or anything like it involved here. It is not a turntable or attractive nuisance case, since the authorities uniformly hold otherwise in home construction. It is not a licensee or invitee case because there is no evidence of such situation. It is not a case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craftsman Builder's Supply, Inc. v. Butler Mfg. Co.
...phrasing of the open courts provision. See Demman v. Star Co., 28 Utah 2d 50, 497 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1972); Taylor v. United Homes, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 304, 445 P.2d 140, 141 (1968); Tiller v. Norton, 123 Utah 42, 253 P.2d 618, 620 (1953); Gibbs v. Blue Cab, Inc., 122 Utah 312, 249 P.2d 213, 216......
-
Kessler v. Mortenson
...the attractive nuisance doctrine was inapplicable to injuries to children at residential construction sites, Taylor v. United Homes, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 304, 445 P.2d 140 (1968) and Featherstone v. Berg, 28 Utah 2d 94, 498 P.2d 660 (1972), granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sheffie......
-
Loveland v. Orem City Corp.
...514-16, 205 P. 571, 575-78 (1922).52 Featherstone v. Berg, 28 Utah 2d 94, 95, 498 P.2d 660, 661 (1972); Taylor v. United Homes, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 304, 305, 445 P.2d 140, 141 (1968); Brinkerhoff v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 2d 214, 215, 371 P.2d 211, 212 (1962); Charvoz v. Salt Lake City, 42 Ut......
-
Pratt By and Through Pratt v. Mitchell Hollow Irr. Co.
...cases. See Loveland, 746 P.2d at 772; Featherstone v. Berg, 28 Utah 2d 94, 95, 498 P.2d 660, 661 (1972); Taylor v. United Homes, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 304, 305, 445 P.2d 140, 141 (1968); Brinkerhoff v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 2d 214, 215, 371 P.2d 211, 212 (1962).3 In Loveland, we pointed out th......
-
Article Title: Utah Supreme Court Review 2000
...trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Eric was a trespasser, and that under Taylor v. United Homes, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 304, 445 P.2d 140 (1968) Featherstone v. Berg, 28 Utah 2d 94, 498 P.2d 660 (1972), the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply to residential home construct......