Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah appellate courts overturn jury fault allocation percentages? Choate v. ARS-Fresno Explained
Summary
Kachina Choate slipped on ice outside a convenience store owned by ARS-Fresno. A jury found both parties at fault but allocated 60% fault to Choate and 40% to ARS-Fresno, barring Choate’s recovery under Utah’s comparative negligence statute. The trial court denied Choate’s motion for new trial.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Choate v. ARS-Fresno reinforced the limited scope of appellate review when challenging jury determinations of fault allocation in negligence cases. The decision clarifies when trial courts should grant motions for new trial based on allegedly improper fault percentages.
Background and Facts
Kachina Choate slipped on ice outside an ARS-Fresno convenience store after taking a shortcut across the property. Despite observing that the sidewalk appeared wet, she proceeded and fell on what she described as black ice. The store had a known water drip that could form ice, and employees would apply ice melt when conditions warranted. However, conflicting testimony emerged regarding whether ice melt had been applied before Choate’s fall. The clerk testified he was “90% sure” he had applied ice melt, while Choate’s mother testified she saw none.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the trial court properly denied Choate’s motion for new trial after the jury allocated 60% fault to her and 40% to ARS-Fresno. Under Utah’s comparative negligence statute, this allocation barred Choate’s recovery because her fault exceeded that of the defendant.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the established standard that a motion for new trial should be granted only if evidence supporting the verdict was “completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.” The court emphasized that allocation of fault is quintessentially a jury question and that appellate courts will not disturb verdicts when conflicting evidence and reasonable inferences support the jury’s findings. Importantly, Choate conceded that sufficient evidence existed to find her at least 49% at fault, undermining her argument that 60% was manifestly unreasonable.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the high bar for overturning jury fault allocations. Practitioners should focus on whether any evidence supports the verdict rather than arguing that conflicting evidence could support different percentages. The court rejected attempts to cherry-pick favorable facts from distinguishable cases and emphasized that reweighing evidence is not an appropriate appellate function.
Case Details
Case Name
Choate v. ARS-Fresno
Citation
2016 UT App 249
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20151054-CA
Date Decided
December 30, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial when conflicting evidence supports the jury’s allocation of fault, even if the plaintiff argues the percentage allocation was incorrect.
Standard of Review
The trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial will be reversed only if the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust
Practice Tip
When challenging jury fault allocation percentages, focus on whether any evidence supports the verdict rather than arguing alternative interpretations of conflicting evidence, as allocation of fault is quintessentially a jury question.
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.