438 P.3d 25
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Hadco contracted to build a highway segment on I-15 and was responsible for implementing traffic control plans; Hadco did not implement any plan for the Corridor.
- HSS (subcontractor) employees, including plaintiff Arreguin‑Leon, were installing a sign on the shoulder; workers parked a semitrailer behind the work site for protection.
- A driver fell asleep, veered into the construction site, struck the plaintiff’s ladder, and plaintiff suffered serious injuries; plaintiff settled with the driver and sued Hadco for negligent failure to implement traffic control.
- Plaintiff disclosed a traffic‑engineering expert who identified five deficiencies in Hadco’s traffic control practices but did not disclose a causation opinion in written disclosures and, at deposition, the expert answered “No” when asked if he had any other opinions.
- At trial the expert nevertheless testified that Hadco’s failure to implement the required traffic control (barrels, taper, buffer, signs) caused the accident because barrels would have awakened the sleeping driver; Hadco objected under Utah R. Civ. P. 26 for nondisclosure.
- Jury awarded plaintiff roughly $2.94 million and apportioned 40% fault to Hadco; trial court denied Hadco’s directed‑verdict motion. On appeal the court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on Rule 26 error, but held denial of directed verdict was correct on the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Hadco's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion under Utah R. Civ. P. 26 by allowing expert to offer undisclosed causation opinion | Expert was not limited by deposition; deposition election does not preclude additional trial testimony | Expert’s causation opinion was not disclosed or supplemented; deposition answer “No” locked in scope and nondisclosure barred trial testimony | Court held trial court misinterpreted Rule 26, abused discretion by admitting undisclosed causation testimony; error not harmless — reversal and new trial required |
| Whether testimony admissible under Utah R. Evid. 702 | (Implicitly) expert testimony was reliable and admissible | Testimony should have been excluded as beyond scope of disclosure/discovery | Court declined to resolve Rule 702 issue further due to reversal on Rule 26 grounds |
| Whether denial of Hadco’s directed‑verdict motion was error (sufficiency of evidence on causation) | N/A (Hadco argued evidence insufficient without expert) | Evidence failed to prove causation; reliance on expert left a fatal gap | Court held evidence (even excluding the disputed expert opinion) was sufficient to create a jury question on causation; denial of directed verdict affirmed |
| Whether nondisclosure was harmless or justified | Testimony was within scope or was merely elaboration | Nondisclosure was prejudicial and not harmless; trial court made no harmlessness/good‑cause finding | Court concluded error was not harmless given centrality of causation and expert’s persuasive role |
Key Cases Cited
- RJW Media Inc. v. Heath, 392 P.3d 956 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (discovery orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 26 remedies discussed)
- Burns v. Boyden, 133 P.3d 370 (Utah 2006) (advisory committee notes are a reliable indicator of intent in adopting rules)
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 199 P.3d 957 (Utah 2008) (abuse of discretion shown when court relies on erroneous legal conclusion)
- Mahmood v. Ross, 990 P.2d 933 (Utah 1999) (standard for causation and jury’s role in resolving causation questions)
- Gables at Sterling Village Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Castlewood‑Sterling Village I, LLC, 417 P.3d 95 (Utah 2018) (standard for granting directed verdict)