Pinney v. Carrera, 438 P.3d 902

Background

Pinney sued Carrera after his car ran a stop sign and struck her vehicle, alleging a permanent herniated disc and seeking non-economic (general) damages; she did not pursue economic damages at trial.
Plaintiff presented testimony from her treating chiropractor that she sustained a permanent herniated disc, would be "plagued" for life, had not regained 100% function, and relied on an MRI admitted into evidence.
Lay witnesses (daughter and friend) testified about Plaintiff’s ongoing limitations and decreased enjoyment of life.
At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Carrera made three oral motions for judgment as a matter of law: causation, lack of economic damages (granted), and failure to meet Utah’s no-fault tort threshold (denied); he renewed the threshold motion after his case and in post-trial motions (denied).
The jury awarded $300,000 in general damages; the trial court denied Carrera’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Carrera also objected to the court’s MUJI 2 causation instruction (requested an instruction using "proximate cause"); the court refused.

Issues

Issue	Pinney's Argument	Carrera's Argument	Held
Whether claimant must demonstrate the §31A‑22‑309(1)(a) tort threshold at trial	Statute does not bar awarding general damages when threshold shown at trial; threshold must be proven (court accepted)	N/A (parties assumed statute applies)	Court: statute’s plain language requires plaintiff to prove at least one listed threshold at trial when applicable; prior precedent supports this.
Whether evidence satisfied the "permanent disability or permanent impairment based upon objective findings" threshold	Chiropractor’s testimony + MRI + lay testimony constitute objective findings of permanent impairment	Plaintiff’s treating doctor cannot alone establish objective findings absent an impairment rating or non‑treating expert	Court: Chiropractor’s exam, MRI, and lay testimony were objective findings; treating physician testimony may suffice; denial of JMOL/JNOV affirmed.
Whether the $300,000 general damages verdict was excessive and required a new trial	Amount supported by testimony of permanence, limitations, and plaintiff’s counsel’s damage request	Verdict excessive and product of passion or prejudice	Court: Jury’s wide discretion in noneconomic damages; evidence provided reasonable basis for award; new trial denied.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing Carrera’s "proximate cause" jury instruction	Requested classic definition of proximate cause	MUJI 2 instruction defining "cause" (including foreseeability) correctly states law and is less confusing to jurors	Court: MUJI 2 instruction adequate and not an abuse of discretion; refusal affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ivie, 606 P.2d 1197 (Utah 1980) (recognizes tort threshold barring general‑damages claims unless statutory criteria met)
Jones v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 592 P.2d 609 (Utah 1979) (distinguishes "disability" as inability to work and "impairment" as loss of bodily function)
McNair v. Farris, 944 P.2d 392 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (plaintiff cannot rely solely on subjective complaints; permanency requires objective evidence)
Ralston v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 62 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1936) (definition of "permanent" as continuing for life)
C.T. ex rel. Taylor v. Johnson, 977 P.2d 479 (Utah 1999) (reaffirms existence and application of the no‑fault threshold despite punitive‑damage statute)
Bear River Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 978 P.2d 460 (Utah 1999) (discusses tort threshold in no‑fault context)
Raab v. Utah Ry. Co., 221 P.3d 219 (Utah 2009) (use of "proximate cause" and jury instruction guidance)
Judd v. Drezga, 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (recognizes broad jury discretion in awarding noneconomic damages)