Can appellants obtain new trials by challenging jury verdicts in negligence cases? Child v. Gonda Explained

In Child v. Gonda, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when trial courts should grant new trials following adverse jury verdicts in negligence cases. The case arose from a fatal automobile accident where a teenage driver attempted a left turn and was struck by defendant Gonda’s northbound vehicle, killing passenger Mindy Child.

Background and Facts

Dale Child’s daughter was killed when Jesse Deller, attempting a left turn on Highway 89, pulled into the path of Andria Gonda’s vehicle. Child had previously settled with Deller for $50,000 before filing suit against Gonda. After a jury trial, the jury found Gonda was not negligent. Child moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, claiming multiple trial errors.

Key Legal Issues

Child raised five alleged trial errors: (1) allowing jury instruction that he and Deller had “resolved their differences”; (2) failing to censure opposing counsel for referencing the settlement; (3) allowing lay opinion testimony about defendant’s driving; (4) granting directed verdict on Deller’s negligence; and (5) instructing that safety law violations “may be” rather than “is” evidence of negligence. He also claimed insufficient evidence supported the verdict.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed, applying abuse of discretion review to the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion. The court found no prejudicial error in the jury instruction about resolving differences, as it did not reference valuable consideration and thus Rule 408 did not apply. Counsel’s improper settlement reference during opening statement did not warrant a new trial absent showing the outcome would have differed. The court declined to address the lay opinion testimony issue due to inadequate briefing.

Most significantly, the court rejected Child’s insufficiency of evidence claim because he failed to properly marshal evidence supporting the verdict and instead asked the court to reweigh evidence—a function exclusively for the jury.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes critical requirements for challenging jury verdicts. Appellants must marshal all evidence supporting the verdict and demonstrate it is “completely lacking or so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable.” Courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the jury’s credibility determinations. The case also shows that isolated trial errors rarely warrant new trials unless they prevent a fair trial or would likely change the outcome.