Johnson v. Montoya, 308 P.3d 566

In August 2007, Montoya collided with Johnson while Montoya was driving northbound on I-15 in Salt Lake County.
Johnson sued for damages arising from the collision and trial proceeded.
A vocational expert testified that Johnson’s injuries shortened her work life and reduced future earning capacity by 50% to 69%.
The vocational expert based her conclusions on Johnson’s records, questionnaires, accident and workers’ compensation data, and surveys from ACS and CPS.
Montoya objected to the vocational expert’s foundation; after voir dire, the court allowed the testimony.
An economic expert testified Johnson would have earned about $962,000 in future earnings (plus $277,879 in fringe benefits), reduced by 50%, totaling at least $619,955 in losses; the jury awarded $475,725.16 in damages.
Montoya moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial; both motions were denied; Montoya appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702	Montoya argues both experts’ methods were unreliable and inapplicable.	Court properly found threshold reliability and applicable methodology.	No abuse; testimony admissible.
Denial of motion for a new trial	No evidentiary support if experts excluded.	Since experts were admitted, there was a reasonable basis to deny a new trial.	No abuse; denial proper.

State v. Adams, 2000 UT 4 (Utah) (abuse of discretion standard for expert testimony admissibility)
Gunn Hill Dairy Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 2012 UT App 20, 269 P.3d 980 (Utah App. 2012) (trial court gatekeeping and reasonability standard for admissibility)
State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah) (abuse of discretion review; reasonableness in evidentiary decisions)
State v. Barzee, 2007 UT 95, 177 P.3d 48 (Utah) (general statistics may be used with other evidence; relevance to particular case)
Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991) (broad discretion in ruling on motions for new trials)