Ladd v. BOWERS TRUCKING, INC.
2011 UT App 355
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ladd was a passenger in a pickup on I-80 eastbound at 4:00 a.m. on Aug. 10, 2003; the driver lost control, causing a rollover with the vehicle landing partly in the median and in the passing lane.
- Eyewitnesses found the pickup empty; Driver was injured and Ladd was present; Granlund, driving a Bowers Trucking semi, struck the vehicle after responders began assisting, causing Driver’s death and injuries to Ladd’s group.
- Ladd asserts injuries including multiple brain contusions and long-term cognitive issues; he asserts memory gaps and later describes a dream in which he relives part of the accident.
- Ladd testified in deposition that his account of the accident was actually reliving a dream; the dream allegedly filled gaps in his memory and conflicted with eyewitness and trooper testimony.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, excluding the dream as inadmissible under Rule 602 and requiring expert causation testimony; Ladd appeals challenging admissibility, weighing of evidence, and need for expert causation evidence.
- The court ultimately affirmed summary judgment, holding the dream inadmissible and that causation required expert testimony; the dissent argues the memory and causation questions should go to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Ladd’s dream as Rule 602 evidence | Ladd’s memory is personal knowledge; Eldredge supports admissibility when opportunity to observe exists | Dream is not personal knowledge; cannot establish perception or memory | Dream deemed inadmissible; no material facts remaining for summary judgment |
| Whether Ladd’s causation can be proven without expert testimony | Ladd’s lay testimony suffices for causation | Causation involves complex medical factors needing experts | Expert testimony required; lay evidence insufficient |
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on causation due to lack of expert designation | Ladd designated treating physicians as potential lay witnesses; experts not required | Causation requires expert designation under Rule 26(a)(3) | Yes, affirming the need for expert causation testimony |
| Whether Ladd presented genuine issues of material fact regarding memory and injuries | Ladd testified to observed injuries and events; memory issues not dispositive | Memory gaps and dream undermine credibility; no triable facts | No genuine issue; trial court proper on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989) (test for Rule 602 personal knowledge (opportunity and capacity to perceive))
- Beard v. K-Mart Corp., 12 P.3d 1015 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (causation in obvious cases; lay testimony often insufficient for medical causation)
- Fox v. Brigham Young Univ., 176 P.3d 446 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (expert testimony generally required for medical causation)
- Lindsay v. Gibbons & Reed, 497 P.2d 28 (Utah 1972) (causation cannot be based on speculation; evidence must support inference)
- Clark v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 893 P.2d 598 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (causation questions may be resolved as a matter of law if no reasonable inference supports)
- Drew v. Lee, 250 P.3d 48 (Utah 2011) (expert designation required; treating physicians may testify without expert reports but must be designated)
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (expert disclosure requirements; physicians not retained as experts may still testify)