Paget v. Department of Transportation, 2014 UT App 62

This is a Utah Appellate rehearing decision involving the Pagets and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT).
The panel previously held that Pagets’ expert testimony was inadmissible and vacated a summary judgment in UDOT’s favor, remanding for further proceedings.
After rehearing, the court affirms the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of UDOT, and the supplemental opinion supersedes Part II of the prior opinion where conflicting.
The Pagets argued they could establish negligence without expert testimony; UDOT contended that the lack of an expert forecloses a prima facie case.
Dissent criticizes this posture, urging remand for trial with potential new experts and rejecting the majority’s handling of expert reliance on standards written by AASHTO.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pagets can prove negligence without admissible expert testimony	Pagets could rely on lay recognition of danger	Without expert testimony, Pagets cannot establish standard of care	Pagets cannot establish prima facie negligence without expert
Whether AASHTO standards govern UDOT’s duty of care in this case	AASHTO standard governs and was met	AASHTO standard does not conclusively govern this fact pattern	Court treated AASHTO as not conclusively determining duty; remand appropriate
Whether the case should be remanded to allow trial with potential new experts	Trial court should have opportunity to consider new experts	Remand would be unnecessary judicial economy concern	Remand deemed appropriate to allow trial court to reassess with new experts

Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist., 321 P.3d 1049 (2013 UT 59) (recognizes expertise requirement for complex engineering issues)
Spafford v. Granite Credit Union, 266 P.3d 866 (2011 UT App 401) (lack of expert testimony precludes breach and causation claims)
Peck v. Horrocks Eng’rs, Inc., 106 F.3d 949 (10th Cir. 1997) (obvious danger exception to expert necessity under Utah law)