482 P.3d 258
Utah Ct. App.2021Background:
- In 2009 the Blanks’ 2008 Mercedes SUV was rear‑ended at high speed by a drunk driver, causing multiple impacts and a partial rollover; both plaintiffs suffered serious injuries.
- The Blanks sued Mercedes (manufacturer/distributor/retailer), alleging the vehicle was not crashworthy and that defects (airbag, seat sensor, passenger seat) enhanced Kathleen’s and Andrew’s injuries.
- Liability expert discovery was bifurcated and closed; after that closure Mercedes moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Kathleen’s claims (and Andrew’s loss of consortium) because no evidence tied a driver‑side defect to Kathleen’s enhanced injuries.
- The Blanks responded with three new expert declarations (two liability experts and one damages expert) offered after liability discovery closed; Mercedes moved to strike them as untimely under Utah R. Civ. P. 26/37.
- The district court struck the late declarations, granted summary judgment dismissing Kathleen’s products‑liability and negligence claims and Andrew’s derivative consortium claim, then tried Andrew’s remaining claims; the court granted a directed verdict for Mercedes on Andrew’s negligence/design claim and the jury found no defect.
- The Blanks appealed, arguing (1) misapplication of Rule 26 vs Rule 16 and erroneous exclusion of experts (and resulting erroneous summary judgment), (2) improper directed verdict on Andrew’s negligence claim, and (3) cumulative evidentiary errors requiring reversal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by striking late expert declarations (Rule 26/37 vs Rule 16) | The late disclosures were scheduling‑order issues under Rule 16 and the court should have exercised discretion to admit or impose a lesser sanction | Rule 26(a)/(e) governed expert disclosures; Rule 37(f) requires exclusion unless harmless or for good cause | Court correctly applied Rule 26/37; exclusion was within discretion because nondisclosure was not harmless and no good cause shown; affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment on Kathleen’s claims was improper without the struck expert opinions | Remaining evidence and circumstantial facts were sufficient for a jury to infer a defect and causation without the excluded expert testimony | Issues (airbag functioning, triggering thresholds, causation of enhanced brain injury) are technical; plaintiff had no expert to prove defect or causation | Expert testimony was required on defect and causation here; without it no genuine issue of material fact existed—summary judgment proper; affirmed |
| Whether directed verdict on Andrew’s negligence (negligent design) was erroneous | There was sufficient evidence on negligence/design elements to submit to jury | None of the defendants designed the SUV or its components, so they cannot be liable for negligent design | Directed verdict proper because plaintiffs conceded (and record shows) defendants did not design the product; affirmed |
| Whether cumulative evidentiary errors required a new trial | Several categories of allegedly improper evidence (third‑party misconduct, prior settlements, plaintiffs’ lifestyle) prejudiced the jury | Admitted evidence related to damages/comparative fault and did not affect the sole issue the jury decided (existence of a defect); any errors were harmless | Any evidentiary errors were harmless because the jury’s special verdict resolved only defect existence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (interpretation of Utah Rules of Civil Procedure reviewed for correctness)
- Coroles v. State, 349 P.3d 739 (Utah 2015) (distinguishing Rule 16 and Rule 37 and explaining Rule 37’s exclusionary framework)
- Niemela v. Imperial Mfg., Inc., 263 P.3d 1191 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (plaintiff must present evidence of defect and causation; failure supports summary judgment)
- Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co., 228 P.3d 737 (Utah 2010) (definition and treatment of enhanced injury in products liability)
- Ladd v. Bowers Trucking, Inc., 264 P.3d 752 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (expert testimony generally required to prove causation absent obviousness)
- Graves v. North E. Services, Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (expert testimony required for scientific matters beyond ordinary juror knowledge)
- Taylor v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 130 F.3d 1395 (10th Cir. 1997) (federal court discussion that Utah law may permit proving defect circumstantially without expert testimony)