refusing to disturb an apportioned jury award because “the jury could reasonably conclude” from the evidence that the apportionment was appropriate
How later courts described this case
- refusing to disturb an apportioned jury award because “the jury could reasonably conclude” from the evidence that the apportionment was appropriate
- the objection, “I take general exception to the failure to give Plaintiff’s Requested Instructions,” was insufficient to give the court notice of error
- objection to jury instruction must be specific enough to give the trial court notice of every error in the instruction complained of on appeal
- "The matter of witness credibility ... falls within the provinee of the fact-finder."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILKINS, Justice
(concurring generally)-
I concur generally but add a reservation. The majority opinion states in response to plaintiff’s assertion that the District Court “. . . failed to instruct the jury as to the legal consequences of its apportionment of negligence” that this point was raised for the fist time on appeal and this Court would therefore not consider it. I agree that failure to present this matter below is fatal.
But I reserve judgment on this issue when properly raised because I believe this Court should reconsider its position announced in McGinn v. Utah Power & Light, 529 P.2d 423 (1974), noted in footnote 15 of the majority opinion, that . . it is prejudicial error if, in a comparative negligence case, the court instructs the jury as to the effect or impact its fact-finding answers, in a special verdict, will have on the outcome of the case”.
STEWART, J.,
concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of WILKINS, J.