*1 as to disclose the of such a character necessary partnership to a be-
essentials JACKSON, Plaintiff, Appel- Richard W. partner per- and the third tween Crоss-Respondent, lant subpartners partners are son.... se, subpartner inter but a does not be- HICKS, Defendant, Respondent Artis M. partnership since
come a member of Cross-Appellant. agreement him and there is no partners_ Consequently, a the other for the subpartner is not liable debts However, subpart- partnership. Court Utah. may for debts which ner be liable regarded subpart- may as debts of the be
nership. Partnership at 941-
59 Am. Jur. 2d § (1971). light of the district court’s
finding the loan from Bennett was in the Park pay improvements
used subdivision, express
City one of Westcor’s joint agree-
obligations under its venture Company, Bitner
ment with burden justifiably may placed on
repay the debt joint venturers. partic
Finally, Company’s Bitner lack of knowledge of Bennett
ipation in or
assignments negate liability its as does not correctly joint majority As the venturer. out,
points joint venturers stand part as
same to each other
ners, principles governing partners’ and the apply joint also venturers. Part
nership clearly requires part that the law
nership wrongful is liable for the acts
partner acting ordinary cоurse of the business, though co-
partnership even knowledge conduct
partners had no of the participate
and did not it. Utah Code (1981); see, e.g., Saikin v. Ann. 48-1-10 Co.,
New York
Insurance
App.
45 Ill.
Life
(Ill.
4 Ill.Dec.
App. Ct. reasons, majority in
For these I
affirming finding imposing the trial court’s liability upon Bitner Com-
pany for the Bennett suffered as Badger’s
a result of Monson and fraudu- assignment
lent to him of sales contracts.
expenses of about as a direct $500 result of this аccident. accident, plaintiff
Prior to the had a his- injuries, tory including of numerous repairs. and two hernia Af- broken bones accident, “mugged” he ter the was on two occasions: once around Christmas of 1980 in and once October of 1981. He was knocked unconscious on both occasions. Florence, Ogden, for Brian Jаckson. attack, night The of the first attempted he Stegall, Salt Lake for by swallowing Quaalude William suicide pills. Fol- Hicks. lowing attack, hospital- the second he wаs concussion;
ized jaw for a broken and he hospital was released from the into a con- DURHAM, Justice: valescent center. While at the convales- Jackson, decedent, Plaintiff’s Derek L. center, cent he suffered a nervous break- damages allegedly sued defendant for down; appointed a consеrvator was for involving by an accident automobile him. parties. jury in favor After a verdict granted defend- plaintiff, of the trial court Following breakdown, plaintiff his Plaintiff wаs ant’s motion for a new trial. Cannell, by Barry psychiatrist treated Dr. granted interlocutory appeal from the an training neurology. visiting with After trial, granting a new and defendаnt plaintiff fifty with some times and review- cross-appealed jury has from the verdict ing plaintiff’s history, clinical Dr. Cannell grant- and affirm the order principal concludеd that the cause of virtu- ing a new trial. ally all of (including exposure muggings jury, This an- and the loss of case was tried to special interrogatories girlfriend swered and awarded with his and their $86,893.22. damages child) of Defendant subse- unborn was the automobile accident. quently moved for a new trial. Defend- He so testified at trial. No rebuttal testi- grаnted grounds ant’s motion was on mony was offered. (a) “guest the existence of the history prior Plaintiff’s work the acci- unconstitutional) (subsequently declared at seasonal, consisting dent was erratic and possibility the time of trial “clouded” the painting such activities as houses and defendant’s entitlement working fishing boats. After the acci- driver, (b) plaintiff’s jury and dent, employed he was for three months judgment speculative verdict and and were refinishing quit, ostensibly boats before he contrary of the evidence. pain. because of excessive He was unable Early morning February to remember his annual income for attempted defendant to drive across year between 1970 and 1979 or whether he State Road with 750 89 at its intersection any specific had filed income year taxes for
West Street in Harrisville. Defendаnt’s ve-
period.
that time
hicle was struck
a vehicle driven
jury,
The case was submitted to the
occupied by plain-
and
objecting
to two instructions.
wearing
tiff. Plaintiff
seatbelt
Following
jury
plaintiff’s
verdict
fa-
top
against
and struck the
of his head
judgment
$86,893.22,
vor and a
defend-
injured
interior of the car and
his knee.
ant
for a
The
moved
new trial.
trial court
nearby
He was treated and released at a
granted
grounds
this motion on the
hospital
subsequently
eigh-
received
comparative negligencе
teen
outpatient physical
sessions of
thera-
girlfriend
py.
adjudicated
The
needed to be
plaintiff
evidence established that
apportioned
оr his insurance
incurred
carrier
medical defendant could be
plaintiff1
caused to
history,
and that
an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, alco-
prove
рlaintiff
holism,
failed to
sufficient causation
disapproval
by his
tying defendant’s
post-acci-
conduct to the
girlfriend’s mother.
damage
he suffered. Plaintiff has
jury
improрer
in that it
appealed
from the order
a new imposed liability on
injuries
defendant for
trial,
defendant,
from the
not shown
the evidence to have been
*3
disрosition
Our
of this case proximately
defendant’s conduct.
makes a consideration of defendant’s cross-
It is self-evident from
testimony
the trial
appeаl unnecessary.
many
that
at the
past,
In the
held
we have
that the mov-
time of trial were the result of the criminal
ing party in a motion for a new trial must
assaults that oсcurred well after the acci-
competent
show “substantial
evidence
giving
rise to this suit.
support
which would
a verdict”
his fa-
In Skollingsberg
Brookover,
v.
26 Utah
Rollins,
vor. Price-Orem Investment v.
(1971),
Brown &
713 P.2d
58
plaintiff carries the
showing
burden of
(Utah 1986),
jury’s
the
any subsequent injury
might
is one that
manifestly against
the
of the evi-
reasonably expected to
follow
the
Hickmаn,
dence. Goddard v.
685 P.2d
original tort and not one due to an unfore-
(Utah 1984).
532
We will not overturn
independent
seeable and
Any
cause.
later
judge’s
grant
deny
a trial
decision to
or
a
cause that
is
indepen-
unforeseeable and
new trial unless he has abused his discre-
proximate
dent becomes the
cause
the
Hickman,
685
Goddard v.
P.2d
injury.
new
(Utah 1984).
case,
532
In this
cross-examining plain-
confined herself to
Therefore, the trial court was cor
tiff’s witnesses. No defense witnesses
in granting
rect
a
trial
new
on the issue of
were called. When a
has failed to
error, however,
grant
causation.
It was
to
prima
make out even a
facie case concern-
comparative
new trial on the issue of the
ing causation,
meaningless
it would be
negligence
plaintiff’s girlfriend.
require
produce
a defendant tо
substantial
first note that the statute of limitations on
which,
evidence
rebut evidence
as a mat-
this action ran several months before the
law,
support
ter of
is insufficient to
entered,
motion for a new trial was
thus
award.
barring
joinder
case, plaintiff’s
this
evidence as
joinder
new trial. Even if
were still
inadequate
support
рossible,
to causation was
guest
created
bar
stat
jury.
relating
award made
There are
ute
to direct actions had no effect
factors that create substantial doubt re
on an action for
Bishop
contribution. See
garding
Nielsen,
(Utah 1981)
relationship
(par
the causal
trial court’s
HALL, concurs. (concurring result):
HOWE, in the Justice result which affirms the
I concur of a trial on the award new
trial court’s causation, judge or as the trial
issue of it, “damages.” I reach this re-
termed competent is evidence there
sult because in favor of support would Investment Price-Orem
the defendant. Gunnell, Inc., Rollins, Brown &
v.Co. *4 1986), and cited there- cases
P.2d 55 plain- to believe
in. The did have in the face of expert
tiff’s on causation no suggesting that there was causa-
facts
ZIMMERMAN, J., concurs opinion of Justice HOWE.
concurring
STEWART, Associate concurs
the result. Utah, Plaintiff and
STATE of
Respondent, GALLEGOS,
Marty Defendant Lee Appellant. of Utah. Court Harrold, Lake
Khris Salt for de- appellant. fendant and