Moa v. Edwards
2011 UT App 140
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Moa appeals trial court’s exclusion of witnesses designated late, who would be treating medical providers or expert witnesses.
- Moa sought a continuance for further discovery to develop those witnesses, which the court denied.
- The jury apportioned fault with Moa’s husband found at least 80% liable for the accident, reducing Edwards’s liability.
- Moa argues the court erred by not finding willfulness to justify exclusion under Rule 37(b)(2), and by not granting a continuance for discovery.
- Appellate court affirms the judgment, rejecting preservation and willfulness challenges and upholding the fault apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of late-designated witnesses was proper. | Moa contends the court erred by excluding witnesses due to late designation. | Edwards argues proper discretion to exclude undisclosed witnesses under rules 16/37. | Affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Moa preserved the willfulness issue for appeal. | Moa argues willfulness should have been found to justify sanctions. | Edwards asserts preservation requirements were not met. | Waived; issue not preserved for review. |
| Whether the trial court needed to find willfulness to exclude witnesses under Rule 16/37. | Moa contends a willfulness finding was required for sanctions. | Edwards contends no explicit willfulness finding is required if supported by the record. | Not reversed; facts support willfulness finding if preserved. |
| Whether the jury’s apportionment of fault was reasonable. | Moa challenges fault allocation against her husband and its impact on Edwards’s liability. | Edwards argues the evidence supports the jury’s apportionment. | Affirmed; substantial evidence supports the fault allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Hospital Corp., 2010 UT App 171 (Utah Court of Appeals 2010) (willfulness standard for Rule 37 sanctions is low)
- In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66 (Utah Court of Appeals 2001) (preservation requirement; trial court opportunity to correct error)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 (Utah Supreme Court 2004) (preservation and detail of findings rule)
- hunt v. Lance, 2008 UT App 192 (Utah Court of Appeals 2008) (preservation/argument timing on trial court errors)
- In re K.F., 2009 UT 4 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (waiver of challenge to district court findings when not challenged below)
- Jones, 694 P.2d 1033 (Utah Supreme Court 1984) (jury credibility and apportionment review standard)
- DeBry v. Cascade Enters., 879 P.2d 1353 (Utah Supreme Court 1994) (jury verdict not reversed if supported by evidence; weight of evidence issue)