Miller v. Utah Department of Transportation
2012 UT 54
Utah2012Background
- Jason and Melissa Miller, as guardians ad litem for their minor child, sued UDOT for negligence after a June 2004 I-15 crash caused by a medical emergency and a lost control crossing the median.
- Millers sought accident-history data from UDOT; Section 409 barred discovery and evidence of such data.
- The University of Utah possession of the data was quashed as barred by Section 409 after in-camera review.
- Millers requested a written voir dire to probe jurors’ views on tort reform and taxing taxpayers against the state; the court denied.
- Millers sought exclusion of certain witnesses and proposed jury instructions on Section 409 and damages; the court denied some requests and accepted others.
- UDOT cross-appealed, challenging the jury instruction on UDOT’s duty of care; the jury found UDOT not negligent; judgment of no award entered; issues were preserved for appeal and remand under Rule 80(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse inference instruction required? | Miller entitlement to adverse inference due to §409 bar | UDOT contends discretion allowed to avoid prejudice | Abuse of discretion; reverse and remand for new trial |
| Section 409 applicability to University data | University data should be discoverable under Pierce County scope | Section 409 bars data held for §409 purposes, regardless of holder | Data held by University barred; affirm district court on discovery issue |
| Voir dire questionnaire admissibility | Written questionnaire would reveal biases of taxpayers jury pool | Discretion to conduct voir dire; no necessity for questionnaire | Court’s handling affirmed; no abuse of discretion; but written questionnaires encouraged for future cases |
| Jury instructions on damages cap and reserve fund | Cap and fund instructions should inform jury about statutory limits | Instructions not part of theory of case; unnecessary | No abuse; instructions not required for remand defense issues |
| Witness exclusion under Rule 615 | Rule 615 not limited to outset of trial; exclusion may be requested later | Failure to object at start precluded exclusion | District court erred in not entertaining exclusion requests; remand may consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2008) ( Supreme Court on §409 scope and data protection)
- Black v. McKnight, 562 P.2d 621 (Utah 1977) (standard for evaluating jury instruction refusals)
- Bramel v. Utah State Rd. Comm'n, 465 P.2d 534 (Utah 1970) (duty of care framework for public entities)