Boyle v. Christensen
2009 UT App 241 · Court of Appeals of Utah · 2009
Facts
In 2004, Christensen struck Mr. Boyle with his vehicle while Mr. Boyle was walking in a crosswalk, causing back injuries that required surgery and left him with chronic pain. The Boyles sued Christensen for negligence and loss of consortium, but Mrs. Boyle's loss of consortium claim was dismissed by the district court. Christensen admitted liability, and the trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages for Mr. Boyle's negligence claim.
Issue
The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in failing to question potential jurors on juror bias and tort reform, whether the district court erred by allowing Christensen to reference the "McDonald's case" in closing arguments, and whether the district court erred in dismissing Mrs. Boyle's loss of consortium claim.
Holding
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that Mr. Boyle did not adequately preserve his argument regarding voir dire questions, that no error arose from Christensen's counsel's closing argument reference to Liebeck, and that the district court properly dismissed Mrs. Boyle's loss of consortium claim.
Rule
To preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue. The determination of whether remarks made during closing argument improperly influenced the verdict is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Loss of consortium claims are governed by Utah Code section 30-2-11, which defines "injured" as a significant permanent injury that substantially changes a person's lifestyle, including paralysis, significant disfigurement, or incapability of performing pre-injury jobs.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.