When can Utah courts give jury instructions about alternative treatment methods? Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics Explained

In Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when trial courts may properly instruct juries about alternative medical treatment methods and significantly reformed the law governing preservation of jury bias claims on appeal.

Background and Facts

Ella Turner was severely injured in a car accident and admitted to University Hospital with multiple fractures, including spinal injuries. Despite initially having functional limbs, Turner became paraplegic during her hospital stay. She sued for medical malpractice, claiming nurses failed to follow spinal precautions by not using proper log-rolling techniques when moving her. Turner also argued the hospital failed to post required signage at her bedside. The jury returned a verdict of no negligence after receiving Instruction No. 30, which stated that selecting among approved treatment methods does not constitute malpractice even if the choice proves wrong.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: first, whether the district court properly instructed the jury about alternative treatment methods when no evidence supported such alternatives; second, whether Turner preserved her jury bias claim under the cure-or-waive rule, which required using peremptory challenges on jurors unsuccessfully challenged for cause.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court found Instruction No. 30 erroneous because the evidence about posting signs did not establish alternative “treatment methods.” The Court distinguished between treatment options (surgery, braces, bed rest) and means of implementing chosen treatment (signage, shift reports). The instruction incorrectly suggested that posting or not posting signs constituted alternative treatments, potentially leading jurors to find no negligence inappropriately. Additionally, the Court overruled the cure-or-waive rule, replacing it with a standard requiring only that parties exhaust all peremptory challenges to preserve jury bias claims, regardless of how those challenges are used.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts both jury instruction practice and jury selection strategy. Trial courts must ensure jury instructions about alternative treatments are supported by actual evidence of different treatment approaches, not merely different implementation methods. For jury selection, practitioners now have greater strategic flexibility in using peremptory challenges while still preserving bias claims, as the new rule allows tactical use of challenges without forfeiting appellate rights regarding erroneously denied for-cause challenges.