469 P.3d 970
Utah2020Background
- Carrera ran a stop sign and collided with Pinney's vehicle; Pinney sued for damages, focusing on noneconomic (general) damages for neck scar tissue and a herniated lumbar disc.
- Pinney presented lay testimony (daughter and friend) about diminished activities and Dr. Dan George (her treating chiropractor), who testified the herniation and scar tissue were permanent based on x‑rays, MRI, and examinations; he acknowledged he did not issue a formal impairment rating.
- The jury awarded Pinney $300,000 in general (pain-and-suffering) damages and $0 in economic damages; Carrera moved for JNOV under Utah Code §31A‑22‑309(1)(a)(iii) (no general damages absent certain injuries) and for a new trial under Utah R. Civ. P. 59 (insufficiency/excessive damages).
- District court denied both motions; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding "objective findings" requires evidence beyond the plaintiff’s subjective testimony.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) the meaning of "objective findings" in §31A‑22‑309 and (2) whether denial of Carrera’s new‑trial motion was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pinney) | Defendant's Argument (Carrera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §31A‑22‑309(1)(a)(iii) "objective findings" requires unbiased/independent medical findings | Pinney: "Objective findings" satisfied by treating physician's verifiable diagnostic evidence (x‑ray, MRI, exams) | Carrera: "Objective" means free from personal bias; a treating physician's conclusions are tainted and insufficient without an independent, unbiased expert | Held: "Objective findings" means findings based on externally verifiable phenomena (observable/measurable), not a requirement of a wholly unbiased or independent expert; Dr. George's testimony satisfied the statute |
| Whether the $300,000 general damages award warranted a new trial (insufficient or excessive/passionate) | Pinney: jury award was supported by testimony about permanent injury, loss of enjoyment, and limitations; jury awarded less than requested | Carrera: award unsupported because no special (economic) damages; amount disproportionate to $0 economic damages and thus excessive/passionate | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; ample evidence supported general damages and lack of economic damages alone does not make a general award excessive or indicative of passion/prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ralston v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 62 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1936) (definition of "permanent" injury)
- McNair v. Farris, 944 P.2d 392 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (objective findings require more than plaintiff's own say‑so)
- Judd v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (distinction between general (noneconomic) and special (economic) damages)
- Wheat v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 250 P.2d 932 (Utah 1952) (excessive damages must be so grossly disproportionate as to indicate passion or prejudice)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness; plain‑language approach)
- Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991) (standard of review for denial of new trial: abuse of discretion)