Richmond v. Bateman
Richmond v. Bateman, 2024 UT App 103 (Tenney, J.)
Torts
Richmond’s Wife was appointed as his guardian under Doctor’s recommendation. Wife subsequently withdrew and destroyed several hundred thousand dollars from Richmond’s bank account. Richmond sued both his guardianship Attorney and Doctor for negligence. But the district court granted Doctor’s motion for summary judgment, because Wife’s and Attorney’s actions were superseding causes as to any negligence by Doctor. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding:
- The actions of both Richmond’s Wife and Attorney were not superseding causes to Doctor’s negligence.
- Appellate practice tip: An appellate court will not affirm on an alternative ground that was neither raised nor ruled on below for “reasons of both fairness and institutional competence.”
- Practice tip: The court left open the question of whether the superseding cause doctrine has been supplanted by Utah’s comparative fault statutes.
- Practice tip: In a negligence case, information presented about the standard of care—a duty inquiry—may be relevant to the question of foreseeability—a causation inquiry.
