*1 if the Summary judgment appropriate affidavits, ELECTRONICS, and other submissions
pleadings, MEDICAL BEEHIVE issue of parties genuine of the show thаt INC., and Soter’s moving material fact exists and that and judgment is entitled to as a matter of R.Civ.P.; 56(c), law. Rule Utah Bowen SQUARE COMPANY, Defendant Utah, Riverton and Utah, Massey Light, v. Utah Power P.2d 937 opposition An affidavit in to a mo summary judgment
tion for must set forth
facts that would be admissible in evidence. 56(e). Ryt -In Rainford v.
ting,
(1969),
this Court affirmed a affidavit “consisted en appellant’s
because evidence,
tirely parol of inadmissible sub varying
mitted for the of and add
ing
agreement
to the terms of the written
parties.”
Id.
present plaintiff’s statements in form,
her are largely conclusory affidavit
did not state with what words specificity (as spoken by opposed defendant conclusions),
her own and therefore would
not be in evidence and may аdmissible considered summary judgment
be 56(e). Rytting, supra.
Rule Rainford v.
Although the facts and the inferenc
es from the facts before the court properly of opponent
are to be construed in favor judgment,
on a motion of summary
mere existence of issues of fact does
preclude summary judgment. The issues rule applicable
fact must be material to the
v. Industrial
Horgan
Design Corp.,
law.
Ranch,
(1982); Heglar
Inc. v. plaintiff’s
The affidavit does not raise
factual issue as to the the re validity of
lease. to respondent.
Affirmed. Costs
HALL, C.J., OAKS, HOWE
DURHAM, JJ., concur.
860 by by and leased
premisеs owned Soter’s returned a verdict jury Beehive. The against plaintiffs. action the cause of summary judg- a then moved for Plaintiffs or, alter- notwithstanding the verdict ment motions the a new which natively, for trial court denied. denial оf their here the
Plaintiffs that the arguing a new motions for jury in- and inconsistent use of inaccurate them entitling structions constituted error 59(a)(7). R.Civ.P. to a new trial under Utah in that allege also Plaintiffs argu- final rebuttal counsel did not make а ment. they that were
Plaintiffs’ contention and inconsistent by inaccurate prejudiced a was as jury instructions rеason of their assignment by valid thereto, lodge proper objections failure to 51 51. Rule required by part: рarty may in “No provides pertinent the failure to giving as error the or assign objects he there- an instruction unlеss give of an instruc- objecting giving In to the to. tion, distinctly the mat- must state grounds for objects ter to which he added.) (Emphаsis objection.” his foregoing interpreted This Court has objection lodged an to require rule to enough give specific an instruction be in the very error notice of the trial court complained of and which instructiоn language such as couched in objection an by and is suggested “the instruction is not terms, law,” lacks or like contrary to the Child, Spafford, R.M. Earl Bruce La- the rule.1 Simi- required by S. the specificity Snyder, objection Yar Dibb and Donovаn Lake that an Salt has held larly, was City, plaintiffs appellants. the instruction grounds that on the does not com- mislеading and “confusing, William Lake for de- Cayias, Salt evidence,” comply does port respondent. fendаnt and there- of Rule 51 and requirements with an preserve fore does not HALL, Justice: Chief error.2 Electronics, Bеehive Medical ob plaintiffs’ In the instant Soter’s, Inc., against brought suit similar, nonspecific jections phrased аlleging negligent Square Company, on the record to objections language: and strict manufacture of a circuit breaker each instruc- are that fire on certain instructions product liability as a result of a City Agency Redevelopment Lake Liability of Salt Employers’ Mutual Insurance Co. Barrutia, Allen Oil P.2d 51 being tion “is not a correct statement of the law expressly overlooked or that the court involving Objections the casе.” certain denied counsel the to rebut. This is other instructions claim that instruc- also not a case where were not supported by any closing argument are “not evidence in allowed a at all or where , objections the record.” These fail to serve by was no rebuttal. re- rule, which is put maining giving silent and not the court the *3 еrror, trial on court notice of error in the instruc- if opportunity to correct its was, tions and thereby oрpor- plaintiff afford court an waived its tunity to correct the error before the case is rebuttal argument.5 presented to the jury.3 Expansion on non- Affirmed. Costs to defendant. specific objections in a motion for a new trial or in appeal, plaintiff a brief on did OAKS, J., concurs. in this does not cure the lack of timeli- HOWE, JJ., STEWART and concur ness in making proper objections to the trial result. court. objec- basis of the DURHAM, Justice dissenting: tions made at the time plain- tiffs have not their assignment of I Although agree holding error. majority that failed to pre- serve by making their This Court has occasionally exercised I proper specific objections at its discretion in the proper objec absence of believe that the instructions in this case tions and given reviewed instructions or not confusing were so erroneous and on their given. But we have said that this should be faсe that this should exercise its dis- “only done under unusual circumstances cretion Rule 51 to review the merits where thе justice interests of so urgently justice.” “in the interests of demand.”4 This is not such a case. The entire pertinent record on instructions,
consists of jury both those ac-
tually given and those requested by the
parties; transcript of plaintiffs’ objec- given; to the instructions and a tran- script arguments. the final We have Rickey Gilles- GILLESPIE Ghislaine
before transcript us neither a of the trial pie, Plaintiffs and nor other rеcord of the evidence presented by parties. In these circum- stances, the speculate Cоurt will not as to COLLEGE, a SOUTHERN UTAH STATE the evidence adduced. public corporation, Defendant and
Finally, plaintiff Respondent, Soter’s claims that a new trial granted should be because Sot- er’s counsel did not make a final rеbuttal BROWN, M.D., Third-Party Scott L. argument. This contention is without mer Defendant and it. plaintiffs, Counsel for both Beehive and Soter’s, аrgument made a final to the jury. Counsel for Beehive also made a rebuttal rebuttal, argument. Following Beehive’s 25, jury. trial court addressed the There is no evidence in the record counsel inform attempted judge rebut, objected
he wished to
that he
Biermann,
263,
5.See,
Employers’, supra
e.g.,
1,
219,
Callan v.
at
note
194 Kan.
Tyee
Richards v.