502 P.3d 320
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- A hybrid Hyundai Sonata allegedly caught fire in the Petersons’ carport and destroyed their home; the Petersons sued Hyundai for products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
- The Petersons disclosed two retained experts (Hodson, fire investigator; Palmer, electrical engineer). Palmer’s preliminary report identified a pinch point for a high-voltage cable at “Point 1.” Hodson’s report did not identify a precise pinch point.
- At depositions both experts generally opined the cable was pinched but did not lock in a Point 2 location; Palmer’s deposition indicated no additional opinions beyond his report. Nine months later, at trial Hodson and Palmer testified the pinch point was actually at “Point 2.”
- Hyundai objected to the late change, the court struck Palmer’s testimony about routing/fault point (gave a curative instruction), but allowed other testimony; the jury returned a verdict for the Petersons for $752,000.
- The trial court denied the Petersons’ request for prejudgment interest, denied Hyundai’s JML, but granted Hyundai’s motion for a new trial based on (1) improper/supplemental expert opinions (disclosure violation) and (2) defective jury instructions that failed to tell the jury the Petersons bore the burden of proof; the Petersons sought both a direct and an interlocutory appeal.
- The appellate court concluded it lacks jurisdiction over direct appeals from an order granting a new trial (dismissed the direct appeals) but had jurisdiction over the Petersons’ interlocutory appeal and affirmed the trial court’s grant of a new trial, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over direct appeal of order granting new trial | Petersons argued Kerr and prior authority permit direct appeal now | Hyundai asserted new-trial order is non-final and not appealable until final judgment | Court: order granting a new trial is not a final judgment; direct appeals dismissed; interlocutory appeal is the proper vehicle |
| Expert-disclosure violation (Palmer & Hodson changed pinch-point testimony) | Petersons: change was inadvertent (wrong photo in report); location immaterial to causation; late slides were adequate notice | Hyundai: experts offered undisclosed, prejudicial new opinions amounting to ambush; required exclusion | Court: Petersons violated Rule 26 duty to supplement; undisclosed Point 2 testimony was surprise testimony and exclusion was appropriate; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Jury instructions — burden of proof on products-liability and negligence claims | Petersons: MUJI instructions were followed; overall instructions and counsel argument cured any omission | Hyundai: MUJI-based instructions failed to tell jury plaintiff bore burden on negligence/strict liability | Court: Instructions were defective because they did not clearly allocate burden (unlike the warranty instruction); that legal error was correctly identified by trial court |
| Prejudice / whether errors required new trial | Petersons: curative instruction and defense argument mitigated prejudice; error harmless | Hyundai: late expert opinions plus defective instructions likely affected outcome | Court: Considering both errors together (expert ambush + instruction gap) trial court reasonably found prejudice; affirm grant of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. City of Salt Lake, 322 P.3d 669 (Utah 2013) (orders granting a new trial are not immediately appealable; appellate review occurs after final judgment)
- Loffredo v. Holt, 37 P.3d 1070 (Utah 2001) (final-judgment rule and definition of finality)
- Dalton v. Herold, 934 P.2d 649 (Utah 1997) (grant of a new trial is not immediately appealable)
- ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 309 P.3d 201 (Utah 2013) (standards for reviewing trial court's grant/denial of new trial; deference to factual determinations)
- Arreguin-Leon v. Hadco Constr. LLC, 438 P.3d 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (expert disclosure/deposition principles; ‘‘locking in’’ expert testimony and supplementation obligations)
- Jones v. Cyprus Plateau Mining Corp., 944 P.2d 357 (Utah 1997) (Model jury instructions are advisory and not necessarily correct)