Utah Court of Appeals
Can trial courts suggest how juries should correct inconsistent verdicts? Callaspo Brito v. Ballhew Explained
Summary
Following a traffic accident, plaintiff sued defendant for injuries. The jury returned an incomplete verdict allocating 70% fault to defendant but awarding no damages. The district court told the jury it had likely switched the fault allocation and instructed them to re-deliberate. The jury then returned a corrected verdict allocating 70% fault to plaintiff, resulting in no recovery.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Callaspo Brito v. Ballhew addressed the limits of trial court authority when juries return inconsistent verdicts, establishing important boundaries for judicial neutrality during re-instruction.
Background and Facts
After a traffic collision, Gustavo Callaspo Brito sued Dustin Ballhew for injuries. Following arbitration and a trial de novo election, the case proceeded to jury trial. The jury initially returned a verdict allocating 70% fault to Ballhew and 30% to Callaspo but failed to award any damages despite the fault allocation favoring plaintiff. This created an apparent inconsistency since Utah’s comparative negligence law would have required damage calculations when plaintiff’s fault was below 50%.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: whether appellate jurisdiction existed after section 321 arbitration proceedings, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in re-instructing the jury about the inconsistent verdict. Defendant argued that appeals were limited to trial de novo, similar to small claims actions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals first established jurisdiction, distinguishing section 321 arbitration from small claims procedures. Unlike small claims statutes that explicitly prohibit most appeals, section 321 contains no such limitation. The court then analyzed the trial court’s jury instruction under Rule 47(s) standards requiring complete neutrality when addressing insufficient verdicts. While the trial court properly identified the inconsistency, it crossed the line by telling the jury “that’s the way that I’m reading it” and suggesting the jury had “maybe switched the allocations.” Such commentary constituted impermissible judicial thumb-on-the-scale guidance rather than neutral explanation.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces strict neutrality requirements when courts address verdict inconsistencies. Trial judges may explain the perceived problem in general terms but must avoid suggesting specific corrections or opining on jury intent. The ruling also clarifies that section 321 arbitration proceedings do not limit traditional appellate rights, distinguishing them from small claims procedures.
Case Details
Case Name
Callaspo Brito v. Ballhew
Citation
2025 UT App 190
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20240739-CA
Date Decided
December 26, 2025
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A district court abuses its discretion when it re-instructs a jury on an incomplete verdict by suggesting a specific outcome rather than remaining neutral and impartial.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s decision to clarify a jury verdict; correctness for questions of appellate jurisdiction
Practice Tip
When addressing jury verdict inconsistencies, explain the problem in general terms without opining on what the jury intended or suggesting specific corrections.
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.