Can safety handbooks be given to juries as exhibits under Utah's learned treatise exception? Paulos v. Covenant Transport Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important evidentiary issues regarding the admission of industry safety standards in Paulos v. Covenant Transport, a negligence case arising from a fatal motorcycle accident involving a commercial truck.

Background and Facts

Dr. Leon Paulos and his wife Sally were traveling on their motorcycle when another vehicle attempted to pass a Covenant Transport semi-truck. The passing vehicle collided with the motorcycle, killing Sally and seriously injuring Dr. Paulos. After settling with the other driver, Paulos sued Covenant for negligence, claiming the truck driver should have taken evasive action to assist the passing vehicle.

Key Legal Issues

The central evidentiary issue involved whether the American Trucking Association’s Safety Guidelines Handbook could be admitted as an exhibit for jury deliberations. Paulos argued the handbook established the standard of care for truck drivers and should be available to the jury as a reference. The trial court admitted portions of the handbook under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(18), the learned treatise exception, but refused to allow it as an exhibit for deliberations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ATA handbook properly qualified as a learned treatise under Rule 803(18). The court noted that federal courts have consistently treated safety codes and standards as falling within the learned treatise exception when prepared by organizations formed to promote safety. Critically, Rule 803(18) explicitly states that learned treatises “may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.”

The court found any error harmless because the pertinent portions were read to the jury and displayed visually, ensuring the jury received the substantive information. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining the method of presentation.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that industry safety standards may qualify as learned treatises even when not dealing with traditional “exact sciences.” However, practitioners should prepare alternative theories of admissibility, such as evidence of industry custom or standards of care, if they want materials available to the jury during deliberations. The ruling also reinforces that parties cannot invite error during trial and then complain about it on appeal—a principle that defeated several of plaintiff’s other arguments regarding jury instructions.