Opinion ID: 2627554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: invited error doctrine

Text: ¶ 13 White Water also argues that the invited error doctrine precludes Newman's claim on appeal that the scope of employment question should have gone to the jury because counsel affirmatively represented to the trial court that the material facts were undisputed and urged it to rule as a matter of law. We disagree. ¶ 14 The invited error doctrine prohibits parties from taking advantage of an error committed at trial when that party led the trial court into committing the error. Tschaggeny v. Milbank Ins. Co., 2007 UT 37, ¶ 12, 163 P.3d 615 (internal quotation marks omitted). Affirmative representations that a party has no objection to the proceedings fall within the scope of the invited error doctrine because such representations reassure the trial court and encourage it to proceed without further consideration of the issues. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 15 It is true that in this case, counsel for both parties affirmatively told the trial court that no material factual issues existed and encouraged it to rule as a matter of law. We note, however, that simply because opposing parties have both moved for summary judgment does not mean that a trial court is required to grant it to one side or the other. See Diamond T Utah, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 21 Utah 2d 124, 441 P.2d 705, 706 (1968). Instead, [t]he trial court is obligated to ascertain whether either party's request for judgment as a matter of law should be granted. Newman v. White Water Whirlpool, 2007 UT App 303, ¶ 3, 169 P.3d 774. In other words, simply because a party claims there are no disputed factual issues does not relieve the trial court of its obligation to determine whether the issue is actually proper for summary judgment. See id. In fact, [t]he [trial] court must recognize that a party's claim that there are no issues of fact relates to that party's theory of the case and should not be construed as support for the adversary's argument or motion. Id. ¶ 16 The parties in this case agreed that the subsidiary and historical facts were not in question. They did not, however, agree about the ultimate factual determination whether Sundquist was within the scope and course of his employment. As the court of appeals aptly stated, [d]espite what the parties may have claimed in arguing their respective motions for summary judgment, the parties have not agreed on an answer to the central factual questions in this case. Id. ¶ 4 n. 1, 169 P.3d 774. Accordingly, the invited error doctrine does not apply.