Can insufficient evidence alone support a new trial in Utah civil cases? Jessop v. Hardman Explained

In Jessop v. Hardman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the demanding standard required to obtain a new trial based on insufficient evidence, while also clarifying the boundaries of permissible juror testimony under Rule 606(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

Background and Facts

An eight-month-old child suffered severe injuries when he pulled a hot iron onto himself while in the bedroom of his father’s friend’s home. The homeowner had left the iron plugged in when interrupted by a phone call, closing the door behind him. Hours later, the child’s father placed his twin sons in the same room without noticing the iron. The child’s mother sued the homeowner for negligence, but after a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of no fault.

Key Legal Issues

The appeal raised three issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence, (2) whether the jury verdict was coerced due to time constraints, and (3) whether the trial court properly struck portions of a juror’s declaration under Rule 606(b).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding the insufficiency of evidence claim, the court applied the established standard that a new trial is warranted only when evidence supporting the verdict was “completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.” The court found substantial evidence supported the verdict, including that the dangerous condition was obvious and the father acknowledged responsibility for his children’s care.

On the coercion issue, the court distinguished cases involving explicit time pressures or Allen instructions, noting that here the trial judge imposed no time limits and jurors communicated with the court twice during deliberations without expressing concerns. Regarding the juror declaration, the court properly struck testimony about other jurors’ mental states and voting motivations while allowing testimony about external bailiff actions under Rule 606(b).

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates the extremely high burden for overturning jury verdicts on sufficiency of evidence grounds. Practitioners must show not merely that evidence was insufficient, but that it was completely lacking or so slight as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable. The decision also reinforces that Rule 606(b) strictly prohibits inquiry into jury deliberations and juror mental processes, with narrow exceptions for external influences or extraneous information.