Avalos v. TL Custom, LLC, 330 P.3d 727

Avalos sustained a workplace foot injury when a granite slab was moved by TLC's forklift on Oct 26, 2007; Operator drove the forklift.
Avalos filed a negligence action against TLC in Sept 2009.
Pretrial rulings barred collateral sources and TLC's liability insurance from being referenced.
During trial TLC repeatedly referenced that it was out of business; the court allowed limited use to bolster credibility of former employees.
Testimony from Operator, Spotter, Manager, Owner, and Avalos described the forklift operation, training, and safety practices; the jury was instructed on damages and paysource considerations.
The jury found TLC not negligent; the court denied Avalos's new trial motion; final judgment entered for TLC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of TLC's closure evidence	Avalos: closure evidence irrelevant and prejudicial to payability	TLC: closure evidence credibility-enhancing, marginally relevant	No abuse of discretion; any error harmless due to limiting instructions
Sufficiency of evidence TLC not negligent	Avalos: undisputed negligence evidence shows TLC was negligent	TLC: evidence supports reasonable care under the circumstances	Evidence supports the jury’s finding of no negligence

Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43 (Utah Supreme Court (2012)) (collateral-source rule and damages offset context)
Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425 (Utah Supreme Court (1998)) (jury instructions can cure misconduct39)
Stevensen 3rd E., LC v. Watts, 2009 UT App 137, 210 P.3d 977 (Utah Court of Appeals (2009)) (unreasonableness of evidence standard on appeal)
Proctor v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2018 UT App 226, 311 P.3d 564 (Utah Court of Appeals (2018)) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts; weigh evidence credibility)
Ames v. Maas, 846 P.2d 468 (Utah Ct. App. (1993)) (violation of statute as evidence of negligence, justifiable excuse option)