Schreib v. Whitmer
370 P.3d 954
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2008 Whitmer rear-ended Schreib in a library parking lot; Schreib sued for negligence alleging injuries from the collision.
- The case was arbitrated in Schreib’s favor; Whitmer appealed to district court and requested a jury trial.
- Schreib filed two motions in limine (Oct 2013): to exclude post-accident vehicle photographs and to exclude evidence of Schreib’s preexisting medical conditions and prior accidents; both motions were denied.
- Trial evidence: Schreib and two chiropractors testified she was injured by the accident; chiropractors had previously treated Schreib for similar complaints; vehicle photographs showed minimal damage; Whitmer testified the impact was minor and Schreib did not seek medical help at the scene.
- The court granted a directed verdict on liability (Whitmer conceded liability); the jury found the accident was not the legal cause of Schreib’s injuries and returned verdict for Whitmer. Schreib’s post-trial motions (JNOV/new trial) were denied; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of preexisting conditions | Schreib: ShopKo requires expert medical linkage — absent such expert, evidence of preexisting conditions is irrelevant and should be excluded | Whitmer: Preexisting conditions and prior accidents are relevant to causation and credibility | Court: Evidence of preexisting conditions was relevant to causation; ShopKo did not mandate exclusion here; denial of motion in limine not an abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of post-accident vehicle photographs | Schreib: Photographs are prejudicial and invite juror speculation about forces causing injury (requiring expert proof) | Whitmer: Photographs showing minimal damage are probative of impact force and causation | Court: Photographs were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; jurors may weigh that evidence without expert testimony on admissibility |
| Whether jurors could consider lack of expert rebuttal | Schreib: Without defense expert, jury should accept plaintiffs’ chiropractors linking accident to injury | Whitmer: Jury may discredit plaintiff experts and consider other evidence (vehicle damage, prior treatment) | Court: Jury not required to accept plaintiff experts; lack of defense expert does not mandate verdict for plaintiff |
| Sufficiency of evidence to deny JNOV / new trial | Schreib: There was no evidence to support finding that accident did not cause her injuries | Whitmer: Conflicting evidence supported jury’s causation finding | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to prevailing party, evidence was sufficient to support jury verdict; motions were properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Fairfax Realty, 82 P.3d 1064 (Utah 2003) (standard for reciting facts in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., 308 P.3d 449 (Utah 2013) (apportionment instruction and requirement of expert support for apportionment)
- Daines v. Vincent, 190 P.3d 1269 (Utah 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Robinson v. All-Star Delivery, Inc., 992 P.2d 969 (Utah 1999) (severity of accident often correlates with extent of damages)
- Lyon v. Bryan, 262 P.3d 1199 (Utah App. 2011) (jury not required to believe an expert even if uncontradicted)
- Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 31 P.3d 557 (Utah 2001) (standard for reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges to denial of directed verdict/JNOV)
- Hansen v. Stewart, 761 P.2d 14 (Utah 1988) (same sufficiency standard for JNOV/new trial)
- Mann v. Fredrickson, 153 P.3d 768 (Utah App. 2006) (standard for reversing denial of new trial where evidence is lacking)