Boyle v. Christensen
2011 UT 20
| Utah | 2011Background
- Mr. Boyle was struck by a truck while walking in a grocery store parking lot crosswalk; liability was admitted by the driver, Mr. Christensen.
- The trial focused on damages, with the jury awarding a total of $62,500 (past $29,700; future $5,000; noneconomic $27,800).
- Mrs. Boyle asserted a loss-of-consortium claim, which the district court dismissed as unsupported by a qualifying injury under Utah Code § 30-2-11(1).
- Voir dire involved combined and revised questions; the district court omitted some of Boyle’s tort-reform questions and no objection was raised during jury selection.
- During closing, Christensen’s counsel referenced the McDonald’s coffee case (Love Liebeck) as a per diem analysis; Boyle objected, but the objection was overruled.
- The court of appeals affirmed in part, but this court reverses on the improper closing reference and on the loss-of-consortium issue; remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of voir dire challenge | Boyle preserved the issue via submitted tort-reform questions. | Boyle failed to object during voir dire and thus waived preservation. | Boyle did not preserve the issue; affirmed on preservation grounds. |
| Closing argument reference to McDonald's coffee case | Reference was improper and prejudicial to Boyle. | Reference was within closing latitude and not inherently prejudicial. | Reference was improper and reasonably likely to prejudice; new trial required. |
| Loss of consortium dismissal | There were disputed facts whether Boyle suffered a qualifying injury under § 30-2-11(1). | Statutory injury requires one of the enumerated examples; court dismissed for lack of injury. | Dismissal erroneous; issues of fact/disputed inferences regarding injury; consortium claim reinstated on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lee, 128 P.3d 1179 (Utah 2006) (preservation requires timely objections to voir dire)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preserving error requires timely raising of issues)
- State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) (test for reasonable likelihood of prejudice in closing arguments)
- Dibello v. State, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1989) (abuse of discretion standard for improper closing argument)
- Pearce v. Wistisen, 701 P.2d 489 (Utah 1985) (ink analogy describing probative prejudice of improper conduct)