Anderson-Wallace v. Rusk, 482 P.3d 822

Shortly after midnight on July 19, 2015, Kenneth Wallace was struck and killed by a semi‑truck driven by K. Lynn Rusk; an autopsy found his death was a suicide and his BAC was 0.17.
Plaintiff (Wallace’s wife) sued Rusk and employer New Prime for wrongful death, alleging the impact occurred at the fog line/shoulder and resulted from Rusk’s negligence; defendants contended Wallace ran into traffic (suicide) and the impact occurred in the lane.
Defendants retained an accident reconstructionist and a toxicology expert to link Wallace’s 0.17 BAC and history of alcohol abuse to impaired judgment/coordination and to rebut Plaintiff’s portrayal of the family.
Plaintiff moved in limine to exclude all evidence of Wallace’s alcohol use, BAC, and the toxicologist; the district court granted the motion under Utah R. Evid. 403 as unduly prejudicial and speculative.
The jury apportioned fault (55% Rusk, 20% Prime, 25% Wallace) and awarded $2.5M non‑economic damages (reduced to $1.875M for Wallace’s share); Defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals held the court abused its discretion in excluding the alcohol evidence, found the error harmful (warranting a new trial), and concluded the challenged closing‑argument comments were permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Wallace’s BAC and alcohol‑use history under Utah R. Evid. 403	Exclude: relevant but too speculative and unfairly prejudicial; jury may punish decedent for drinking	Admit: highly probative of why Wallace may have entered lane (liability) and of family dysfunction (damages); expert can explain effects of 0.17 BAC	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion: evidence was highly probative, prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value, and exclusion was harmful — verdict vacated and remanded for new trial
Whether Plaintiff’s counsel improperly argued Wallace’s lost future earnings in closing	Argument was responsive and tied to evidence; aimed to counter defense points	Improper: raised facts/economic considerations not in evidence and outside damages permitted	Remarks were permissible: counsel responded to defense testimony about Wallace’s wage/finances; no trial error requiring reversal on this point

Northgate Vill. Dev., LC v. City of Orem, 450 P.3d 1117 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 (errors in admission/exclusion require showing of harmfulness for reversal)
State v. Burke, 256 P.3d 1102 (definition and application of Rule 403 unfair prejudice)
State v. Johnson, 784 P.2d 1135 (how to assess probative value of evidence)
State v. Maurer, 770 P.2d 981 (unfair prejudice defined as tendency to decide on improper basis)
Woods v. Zeluff, 158 P.3d 552 (Rule 403 exclusion is extraordinary and evidence should be viewed favorably to its proponent)