Conger v. Home Depot USA et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 08/02/2022. (jl)
Case 1:20-cv-00043-DBB-DAO Document 40 Filed 08/02/22 PageID.442 Page 1 of 3
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
BONNIE LOU CONGER, individually and on
behalf of the heirs of BRIAN CONGER,
deceased, and as presumptive personal
representative of the ESTATE OF BRIAN
CONGER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and TARACA
PACIFIC, INC.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING
[30] HOME DEPOT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 1:20-cv-43
District Judge David Barlow
Defendants.
This case is before the court on Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (Home Depot)
motion for summary judgment. 1 After reviewing Home Depot’s motion, Plaintiffs filed a
response stating that they do not oppose entry of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot. 2
Home Depot then filed a reply asking the court to enter summary judgment in its favor and to
dismiss all of the Plaintiffs’ claims against it. 3 Having reviewed Home Depot’s motion for
summary judgment, and in light of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition, the court finds that Home Depot is
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
A party is entitled to summary judgment only if it is able to show there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 4 Material
1
ECF No. 30, filed May 16, 2022.
2
ECF No. 37, filed July 8, 2022.
3
ECF No. 38, filed July 19, 2022.
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Case 1:20-cv-00043-DBB-DAO Document 40 Filed 08/02/22 PageID.443 Page 2 of 3
facts are ones that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” 5 And a
dispute regarding a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 6
Plaintiffs assert in their complaint that Home Depot is liable for negligence in relation to
the tragic death of Brian Conger (Brian), who passed away due to injuries sustained from an
accident that occurred while he was moving pallets of plywood at work. 7 Home Depot was the
intended recipient of the pallet of plywood involved in the accident. 8 And Plaintiffs originally
alleged that Home Depot was negligent in failing to ensure that the pallet was shipped safely. 9
To prove negligence under Utah law, a plaintiff must establish four distinct elements:
“(1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) that the defendant breached that duty,
(3) that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) that the
plaintiff in fact suffered injuries or damages.” 10 In moving for summary judgment, Home Depot
argues that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim fails as a matter of law because, among other things,
Home Depot did not owe Brian a duty of care. 11 “The issue of whether a duty exists is a question
of law to be determined by the court.” 12
Home Depot argues that there is nothing it could have done to ensure Brian’s safety while
he moved the pallets of plywood because, as merely the end purchaser and destination of the pallet
of plywood, it had no involvement in determining how the plywood would be packaged,
5
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
6
Id.
7
See ECF Nos. 4-1 ¶¶ 9–10, 15; 30 at 2–3.
8
ECF No. 30 at 3.
9
ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 15.
10
Hunsaker v. State, 870 P.2d 893, 897 (Utah 1993).
11
ECF No. 30 at 7–8.
12
Hunsaker, 870 P.2d at 897.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00043-DBB-DAO Document 40 Filed 08/02/22 PageID.444 Page 3 of 3
transported, or unloaded from its shipping container. 13 The plywood was wrapped and packaged
by foreign mills, the plywood pallets were imported and shipped by Defendant Taraca Pacific, Inc.,
and Brian unloaded the pallets for, and on the premises of, his employer. 14 Therefore, the argument
goes, there are no facts from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that Home Depot owed
Brian a duty of care. 15 In response to Home Depot’s arguments, Plaintiffs concede that Home
Depot was not involved with the packaging or transportation of the pallets in any way and agree
that, as a matter of law, Home Depot did not owe Brian a duty of care. 16
Because it is undisputed that Home Depot had no involvement in the packaging,
transporting, or unloading of the pallet that caused Brian’s injuries—and in light of Plaintiffs’
concessions of fact and law—the court agrees that, as a matter of law, Home Depot did not owe
Brian a duty of care. Therefore, it is undisputed that Home Depot was not negligent with regard
to the accident the caused Brian’s lethal injuries, and Home Depot is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Home Depot’s motion 17 for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Signed August 2, 2022.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
13
ECF No. 30 at 7–8.
14
Id. at 3–5.
15
Id.
ECF No. 37. In their response, Plaintiffs agree that paragraphs 1 through 27 in the undisputed facts section of
Home Depot’s motion for summary are undisputed. Id. at 1. The only disputed facts are unrelated to the issue of
whether Home Depot owed Brian a duty. See id.; see also ECF No. 30 at 6, ¶¶ 28–32.
16
17
ECF No. 30.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?