Utah Supreme Court
When can juries apportion damages between negligence and preexisting conditions? Harris v. ShopKo Explained
Summary
Harris was injured when a display chair collapsed at ShopKo, causing back and tailbone pain. She had preexisting conditions including degenerative disc disease and prior car accident injuries that were asymptomatic at the time. The trial court gave an apportionment instruction allowing the jury to allocate damages between ShopKo’s negligence and her preexisting conditions.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Harris v. ShopKo, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when trial courts may instruct juries to apportion damages between a defendant’s negligence and a plaintiff’s preexisting medical conditions.
Background and Facts
Wendy Harris was injured when a display office chair collapsed at ShopKo, causing her to fall and develop severe back and tailbone pain. Evidence showed Harris had preexisting conditions including degenerative disc disease and prior car accident injuries, though these conditions were asymptomatic at the time of the ShopKo incident. The trial court instructed the jury to apportion damages between ShopKo’s negligence and Harris’s preexisting conditions if possible. The jury found ShopKo negligent but awarded substantially less than Harris requested.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether an apportionment instruction was proper when preexisting conditions were asymptomatic on the injury date. The court of appeals had adopted a bright-line rule requiring preexisting conditions to be symptomatic to justify apportionment, but the Utah Supreme Court took certiorari to review this approach.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court rejected the court of appeals’ bright-line approach, holding that whether a preexisting condition is symptomatic or asymptomatic is not determinative. The Court emphasized that proximate cause should be the guiding principle, and that defendants should only be liable for injuries they proximately caused. However, the Court affirmed the new trial order because the evidence lacked sufficient expert testimony to provide a nonarbitrary basis for apportionment. The Court distinguished between fault apportionment (where common experience suffices) and medical causation apportionment (where expert guidance is typically necessary).
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that while asymptomatic preexisting conditions can justify apportionment instructions, parties must present expert testimony addressing the extent to which preexisting conditions contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. The testimony need not provide exact percentages but must offer more than speculation. Practitioners should ensure medical experts specifically opine on causation allocation rather than merely identifying the existence of preexisting conditions.
Case Details
Case Name
Harris v. ShopKo
Citation
2013 UT 34
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20110945
Date Decided
June 14, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
While preexisting conditions need not be symptomatic on the date of injury to justify apportionment, an apportionment instruction requires expert testimony providing a nonarbitrary basis for the jury to allocate damages between the defendant’s negligence and the preexisting condition.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
When seeking apportionment instructions for preexisting conditions, ensure expert testimony specifically addresses the extent to which the preexisting condition contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, not merely its existence.
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.