Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, 310 P.3d 1212

Background

In 2002 Ella Turner was admitted to University Hospital after a rollover crash and placed on bed rest under spinal precautions; ten days later an MRI showed spinal injury and she became paraplegic.
Turner sued the Hospital for negligence, alleging nurses improperly moved her (not using log-rolling) and the Hospital failed to post a spinal-precautions sign at her bedside.
During voir dire Turner challenged several jurors for cause (most granted, four denied); she had three peremptories, used two on previously challenged jurors and one on a juror she suspected of hidden bias; two of the previously challenged jurors were seated.
The court instructed the jury with Instruction No. 30 (over Turner’s objection) stating that when more than one approved method of treatment exists, choosing any approved method is not malpractice; the jury returned a unanimous no-negligence verdict.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Butler (affirming on any viable theory) to treat an alternative theory (nurses always log-rolled) as harmless, and applying the cure-or-waive rule to preclude Turner’s juror-bias claim on appeal.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, concluded Instruction No. 30 was unsupported by evidence and prejudicial, reversed and remanded for a new trial, and abandoned the cure-or-waive rule in favor of a Hopt-based standard for preserving jury-bias claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Instruction No. 30 was properly given	Turner: No evidence of an alternative "method of treatment" justified the instruction; it mislabels posting a sign as a treatment method and was prejudicial.	Hospital: Conflicting evidence about posting signs vs relying on shift reports supported instruction as presenting two methods of implementing precautions.	Instruction No. 30 was erroneous and prejudicial because posting a sign is not a method of treatment; new trial ordered.
Whether the verdict can be affirmed under Butler when multiple "theories" could support it	Turner: Butler inapplicable—there was a single cause of action (medical negligence), so no error-free alternative theory existed.	Hospital/Ct. of Appeals: Jury could have decided liability on an alternative factual theory (nurses always log-rolled), making the instruction harmless.	Butler was misapplied; where only one cause of action exists, Butler does not justify affirmance based on a speculative alternative.
Whether Turner preserved juror-bias error on appeal under the cure-or-waive rule	Turner: Rule yielded unfair result; she used peremptories tactically and should not be penalized for doing so.	Ct. of Appeals (relying on Baker): Party must use peremptory on juror unsuccessfully challenged for cause to preserve bias claim.	Court abandons cure-or-waive rule; adopts Hopt rule: issue preserved if party exhausted peremptories and a juror previously challenged for cause actually sat; tactical use of peremptories permitted.
Proper standard for preserving jury-bias claims on appeal	Turner: Preserve if all peremptories used and a previously challenged juror sat—should not dictate how peremptories are used.	Baker/cure-or-waive: Required using peremptory on the specific juror denied for cause to preserve claim.	Adopt Hopt rule: exhaustion of all peremptories plus seating of a juror previously challenged for cause preserves the claim; overrule Baker to the extent inconsistent.

Key Cases Cited

Butler v. Naylor, 1999 UT 85, 987 P.2d 41 (Utah 1999) (discusses affirming a jury verdict if any submitted theory supports it)
State v. Baker, 935 P.2d 503 (Utah 1997) (plurality adopting the cure-or-waive rule for juror-bias preservation)
People v. Hopt, 9 P. 407 (Utah Terr. 1886) (rule that exhaustion of peremptory challenges is required before complaining of jury composition)
Leigh Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Isom, 657 P.2d 293 (Utah 1982) (explains that when multiple causes of action are submitted, a valid ground supports a general verdict)