Can juries apportion damages based on asymptomatic pre-existing conditions? Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc. Explained

In personal injury cases, the presence of pre-existing conditions often complicates damage calculations. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this complexity in Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., clarifying when juries may apportion damages between an accident and prior medical conditions.

Background and Facts

Wendy Harris sustained injuries when a display office chair collapsed at ShopKo, causing her to fall and land on her wrist and tailbone. She developed severe lower back and tailbone pain that persisted for years, requiring extensive medical treatment including chiropractic care, physical therapy, and pain management procedures. Harris had a history of prior auto accidents and medical conditions, including neck and back pain episodes, fibromyalgia, and degenerative disc disease. However, medical testimony indicated these conditions had been “taken care of” and were not causing symptoms at the time of the ShopKo incident.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on damage apportionment when no evidence showed Harris’s pre-existing conditions were symptomatic at the time of the accident. The court had to determine when Model Utah Jury Instruction CV2018 (for symptomatic pre-existing conditions) versus CV2019 (for dormant conditions) should apply.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in giving the apportionment instruction. Under Utah law, when a defendant’s negligence aggravates or “lights up” latent, dormant, or asymptomatic conditions, the defendant is liable for the full amount of resulting damages. The court emphasized that a victim with asymptomatic pre-existing conditions stands on equal footing with a victim having no pre-existing conditions. Critical to the analysis was that while substantial evidence existed regarding Harris’s prior medical history, no evidence supported a finding that these conditions were causing symptoms on the accident date.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that the mere existence of pre-existing medical conditions does not automatically justify damage apportionment instructions. Courts must distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic conditions when determining liability. Practitioners defending personal injury cases should ensure they have concrete evidence that pre-existing conditions were actively causing symptoms before seeking apportionment instructions, as speculation about potential causation is insufficient.