Choate v. ARS-Fresno LLC
391 P.3d 344
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 28, 2012, Choate slipped on a patch of ice on a convenience-store walkway owned by ARS-Fresno while taking a shortcut; she later saw ice under her after the fall.
- Store employees had observed a water drip from the building overhang onto that sidewalk; store practice was to apply ice melt when ice formation was likely.
- Conflicting testimony: Choate and her mother said no ice melt was present; the clerk said he was "90% sure" he had applied ice melt; the manager said ice melt was present when he arrived.
- Experts testified about weather, sidewalk construction, and the roof drip; witnesses also disputed whether the clerk had time to apply ice melt and whether the roof could have caused buildup given freezing temperatures.
- Jury found both parties negligent but apportioned fault 60% to Choate and 40% to ARS, barring recovery under Utah comparative-fault law; trial court denied Choate’s Rule 59 new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury’s 60/40 fault apportionment (barring recovery) was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Choate: evidence of ARS’s knowledge of the defect and failure to make premises safe made the verdict plainly unreasonable; jury lacked sufficient evidence to assign her majority fault | ARS: conflicting evidence supported various reasonable allocations; fault allocation is a jury question; evidence supported finding both negligent | Court affirmed: appellate review defers to jury; evidence was sufficient for a reasonable 60/40 allocation and denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a new trial based on purportedly slight and unconvincing evidence of contributory negligence | Choate: asks remand/new trial because the weight of evidence did not support her being more at fault | ARS: trial court correctly applied standard; conflicts in testimony allowed reasonable different inferences | Held: No abuse — standard requires verdict be completely lacking or plainly unreasonable; here evidence supported either outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 31 P.3d 557 (Utah 2001) (appellate deference to jury on credibility and sufficiency challenges)
- Sharp v. Williams, 915 P.2d 495 (Utah 1996) (reversing denial of new trial where statute imposed strict liability and evidence supporting apportionment was slight)
- Wilhelm v. Great Falls, 685 P.2d 350 (Mont. 1984) (affirming new trial where jury apportionment unsupported by evidence)
- Lehmkuhl v. Bolland, 757 P.2d 1222 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988) (finding jury allocation against great weight of evidence in auto-accident context)
- Schreib v. Whitmer, 370 P.3d 955 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (standard for reversing denial of new trial: verdict must be completely lacking or plainly unreasonable)