Utah Court of Appeals
When can co-defendants receive separate peremptory challenges in Utah courts? Bee v. Anheuser-Busch Explained
Summary
Plaintiff Bee was injured during a hockey puck shooting contest at Anheuser-Busch’s Bud World Party while intoxicated. The trial court granted separate sets of peremptory challenges to defendants Anheuser-Busch and Prominence despite their stipulation that Prominence would indemnify Anheuser-Busch for any judgment. The jury found both defendants negligent but apportioned 75% fault to Bee.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical jury selection issue in Bee v. Anheuser-Busch, clarifying when co-defendants may receive separate sets of peremptory challenges under Rule 47(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Background and Facts
During the 2002 Winter Olympics, plaintiff Michael Bee attended the Bud World Party and participated in a hockey puck shooting contest while intoxicated. He slipped and fell on the ice, sustaining brain, head, and neck injuries. Bee sued Anheuser-Busch, which then filed a third-party complaint against Prominence, the event manager. The trial court granted separate sets of peremptory challenges to both defendants over Bee’s objection, reasoning that a “substantial controversy” existed between them due to breach of contract and indemnification issues.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the relationship between Anheuser-Busch and Prominence created a substantial controversy sufficient to justify separate peremptory challenges under Rule 47(e). The court also addressed voir dire questioning about tort reform and the admissibility of marketing evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no substantial controversy existed between the defendants. The court explained that a substantial controversy requires “a cross-claim against a co-party that constitutes, in effect, a separate, distinct lawsuit from the action existing between the plaintiffs and defendants.” Derivative claims for indemnification or contribution do not meet this standard. Crucially, the defendants had stipulated that Prominence would pay any judgment against Anheuser-Busch, eliminating the adverseness that might justify separate challenges.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that practitioners must carefully analyze the true nature of relationships between co-defendants when seeking or opposing separate peremptory challenges. Courts will look beyond formal pleadings to examine whether defendants present a “united front” against the plaintiff. When defendants have aligned interests through stipulations or agreements, separate challenges will likely be inappropriate regardless of technical cross-claims for indemnification.
Case Details
Case Name
Bee v. Anheuser-Busch
Citation
2009 UT App 35
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20070804-CA
Date Decided
February 12, 2009
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court errs in granting separate sets of peremptory challenges to co-defendants when their relationship involves only derivative claims for indemnification and contribution rather than a substantial controversy constituting a separate, distinct lawsuit.
Standard of Review
Limited discretion for determination of substantial controversy between co-defendants; abuse of discretion for voir dire management and evidence relevance determinations
Practice Tip
When opposing separate peremptory challenges for co-defendants, emphasize any stipulations or agreements that demonstrate alignment of interests and argue that derivative claims like indemnification do not create substantial controversy under Rule 47(e).
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.