Harris v. ShopKo
308 P.3d 449
Utah2013Background
- Harris was injured when ShopKo display chair collapsed; fall caused wrist and tailbone impact with ongoing back pain.
- Medical history shows preexisting back issues and potential degenerative conditions prior to the ShopKo incident.
- Multiple experts testified about possible preexisting conditions and their relation to Harris’s pain, with some suggesting aggravation by the fall.
- Trial court gave an Apportionment Instruction directing apportionment between injury from fall and preexisting conditions; if not apportioned, entire harm could be attributed to defendant.
- Jury found ShopKo negligent but awarded limited damages for medical expenses and noneconomic damages, prompting Harris to appeal.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Apportionment Instruction improper due to lack of evidence that preexisting conditions were symptomatic at the time; this Court grants certiorari and affirms remand for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preexisting conditions must be symptomatic on the injury date for apportionment | Harris argued asymptomatic preexisting conditions cannot support apportionment | ShopKo argued Biswell rule requires symptomatic condition to apportion | No bright-line symptom requirement; remand for apportionment with proper expert evidence |
| Was the Apportionment Instruction supported by nonarbitrary evidence | Evidence showed preexisting conditions but not their exact contribution | Expert testimony suggested possible aggravation but did not quantify apportionment | Instruction improper; remand for new trial with adequate expert apportionment evidence |
| Whether the evidence at trial justified giving an apportionment instruction at all | Any apportionment should be allowed if there is causal connection | Apportionment required reliable basis; otherwise arbitrary | Evidence insufficient for nonarbitrary apportionment; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Biswell v. Duncan, 742 P.2d 80 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (apportionment not supported when no symptomatic preexisting condition evidence)
- Tingey v. Christensen, 1999 UT 68, 987 P.2d 588 (Utah 1999) (burden on tortfeasor for entire damages if apportionment cannot be made)
- Brunson v. Strong, 412 P.2d 451 (Utah 1966) (eggshell plaintiff doctrine; plaintiff taken as is but damages must be proximately caused)
- Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co., 241 P.2d 914 (Utah 1952) (proximate cause governs damages; injury must be proximately caused by defendant)
- Raab v. Utah Ry. Co., 2009 UT 61, 221 P.3d 219 (Utah 2009) (proximate cause inquiry focuses on whether liability attaches to a cause in fact)
- Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co., 2010 UT 8, 228 P.3d 737 (Utah 2010) (expert guidance may be required for apportionment of causation)
- Crestwood Cove Apartments Bus. Trust v. Turner, 2007 UT 48, 164 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2007) (proximate cause considerations; limits on as a matter of law determinations)