# Lamkin v. Lynch

> Utah Supreme Court · August 27, 1979 · 600 P.2d 530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550399

## Case

- **Full name:** Hubert LAMKIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sue Ann LYNCH, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 27, 1979
- **Citations:** 600 P.2d 530; 1979 Utah LEXIS 891
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Maughan
- **Judges:** Hall, Wilkins, Stewart, Maughan, Crockett
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550399

## Opinion text

MAUGHAN, Justice
(dissenting).
For the following reasons, I dissent.
Plaintiff suffered severe multiple fractures and was hospitalized for months. He sustained a later fracture of the leg at the point of the bore holes, which were made in the process of repairing the bones injured by this accident. He has suffered, and will continue to suffer, pain from the injuries he sustained. He has a permanent total disability of 20-25% as a consequence of this accident. Initially, the jury found the plaintiff had suffered no general damages for pain and suffering, no temporary or permanent disability, and no loss of past or future earnings. The jury was instructed *534 to deliberate longer on general damages. The jury returned three minutes later with an award of One Dollar for general damages.
In my view, such a determination by the jury indicates the jury was actuated either by an improper motive, bias, prejudice, or misunderstanding of the law, in arriving at its verdict of One Dollar for general damages.
Plaintiff contends that failure to instruct the jury about the legal consequences of its apportionment of negligence leads to a harsh and unfair result. This failure to so instruct, according to plaintiff, is inimical to the interest of justice and should be disapproved by this Court. Plaintiff concedes he did not specifically request such an instruction, but such a gesture would have been futile. In McGinn v. Utah Power and Light Co., Utah, 529 P.2d 423 (1974), this Court ruled it was prejudicial error if, in a comparative negligence case, the trial court instructed the comparative negligence case, the trial court instructed the jury as to the effect or impact of its fact-finding answers, in a special verdict would have on the outcome of the case. Plaintiff urges this Court to reassess the McGinn ruling. I would do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550399. Public record. Not legal advice.