Clayton v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 11 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 20070517-CA.,20070517-CA. |
| Citation | 2009 UT App 154,214 P.3d 865 |
| Parties | Dolores CLAYTON, Frederick Clayton, Estate of Anthony Clayton, and Kellie Montoya, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Utah Auto Collection, and Warren Super Ford Store, Defendants, Appellee, and Cross-appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Thor O. Emblem and Tracy L. Emblem, Escondido, California, and Matthew H. Raty, Sandy, for Appellants and Cross-appellees.
Dan Larsen, Kimberly Neville, and Troy L. Booher, Salt Lake City, for Appellee and Cross-appellant.
Before Judges GREENWOOD, THORNE, and ORME.
¶ 1 Following an automobile accident in which Anthony Clayton was killed and his fiancée, Kellie Montoya, was injured, Mr. Clayton's parents, Frederick and Dolores Clayton, and Ms. Montoya (collectively Plaintiffs) brought this suit against Ford Motor Company (Ford) alleging strict liability for fourteen product defects, wrongful death, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of the consumer sales act,1 and fraud. Plaintiffs also requested punitive damages. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict entirely in Ford's favor. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial arguing several points of legal error, but the trial court denied this motion and entered final judgment. Plaintiffs now appeal, asking us to vacate the jury's verdict. We affirm.
¶ 2 Mr. Clayton and his fiancee, Ms. Montoya, were driving a 1997 Ford Explorer (the Explorer) on November 27, 1998. The couple was traveling east on I-80 about four miles from Evanston, Wyoming. There was no inclement weather, the visibility was clear, and the pavement was dry. The Explorer drifted off the highway onto the shoulder of the road and rolled four times through the median. Mr. Clayton was ejected through the open driver's door during the rollover. He was killed and Ms. Montoya was injured.
¶ 3 Ford asserts that Mr. Clayton was not wearing a seat belt, was inattentive, and, when the Explorer drifted off the road, he overcorrected, causing the Explorer to leave the road and roll. Plaintiffs assert that the accident was not caused by Mr. Clayton's inattentiveness but by a break in the Explorer's right front steering tie rod. Plaintiffs argue that it was Mr. Clayton's custom and habit to wear his seat belt and offered explanations as to how the seat belt may have unlatched during the accident. Plaintiffs further assert that the driver's door latch (the door latch) opened during the rollover because it, too, was defective. The jury made only one finding of fact — that the Explorer was not defective.
¶ 4 Plaintiffs present twelve issues on appeal. Because we affirm on all issues, we do not address Ford's cross-appeal issues except its request for attorney fees. Both parties ask for attorney fees on appeal.
¶ 5 I. Did the trial court err by denying Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial based on Plaintiffs' theory that Ford physically altered the door latch after the accident? A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 804 (Utah 1991).
¶ 6 II. Did the trial court err in excluding impeachment evidence? A trial court has broad discretion in excluding evidence for lack of foundation, and we review for an abuse of that discretion. See Tjas v. Proctor, 591 P.2d 438, 440 (Utah 1979).
¶ 7 III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in using Ford's special verdict form rather than Plaintiffs' proposed special verdict form? "The use of special verdicts or interrogatories is a matter for the trial court's sound discretion." Cambelt Int'l Corp. v. Dalton, 745 P.2d 1239, 1241 (Utah 1987). Further, a party must timely object to errors in a special verdict form to preserve the issue for appeal. See Moore v. Smith, 2007 UT App 101, ¶ 31, 158 P.3d 562.
¶ 8 IV. Did the trial court err as a matter of law by instructing the jury with Jury Instruction Nos. 27, 30, and 31? Jury instructions are reviewed for correctness. See Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425, 429 (Utah 1998). Jury instructions, however, are reviewed in their entirety and are affirmed "'when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case.'" Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 38, 31 P.3d 557 (quoting State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1231 (Utah 1997)).
¶ 9 V. Did the trial court err in bifurcating the trial into liability and damages phases? The trial court's decision to bifurcate a trial falls within its inherent power to manage its docket and, accordingly, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Walker Drug Co. v. La Sal Oil Co., 972 P.2d 1238, 1244 (Utah 1998).
¶ 10 VI. Did the trial court err by excluding several of Ford's internal engineering documents and memoranda offered by Plaintiffs? A trial court's decision to exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Whittle, 1999 UT 96, ¶ 20, 989 P.2d 52.
¶ 11 VII. Did the trial court err in directing a verdict in Ford's favor on the marketing/fraud issue when there were questions of fact warranting the jury's deliberation and resolution? We review for correctness the grant of a motion for directed verdict. See Goebel v. Salt Lake City S. R.R. Co., 2004 UT 80, ¶ 10, 104 P.3d 1185.
¶ 12 VIII. Did the trial court's actions and remarks coerce a quick and unreasoned jury verdict? A trial court's management of its docket and trial schedule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Berrett v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 830 P.2d 291, 293 (Utah Ct.App.1992). To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have objected at trial or demonstrate plain error. See State v. King, 2006 UT 3, ¶ 13, 131 P.3d 202.
¶ 13 IX. Did the trial court err in leaving Juror No. 3 on the jury after the juror made statements to other jurors indicating he had made up his mind? The decision to allow a juror to remain on a panel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Harding v. Bell, 2002 UT 108, ¶ 14, 57 P.3d 1093. To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have objected in the trial court at trial or demonstrate plain error. See King, 2006 UT 3, ¶ 13, 131 P.3d 202.
¶ 14 X. Did the trial court err in allowing Ford to present statistical evidence of other rollover accidents? This court reviews decisions to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. See Whittle, 1999 UT 96, ¶ 20, 989 P.2d 52.
¶ 15 XI. Did the trial court err by allowing Trooper Ross Pace, the officer who filed the initial accident report, to testify as an expert about his theories of causation? A trial court is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether adequate foundation has been laid for the admission of evidence. See Tjas v. Proctor, 591 P.2d 438, 440 (Utah 1979). A party must object to the admission of evidence at trial to preserve the issue for appeal. See State v. Cram, 2002 UT 37, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 230.
¶ 16 XII. Should the judgment be reversed due to cumulative error? Reversal is required where the effect of several errors undermine our confidence in the fairness of the trial. See Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 928 (Utah 1990).
¶ 17 At trial, Plaintiffs claimed that the door latch was defective, causing the door to open during the rollover. Ford argued that the combined force of Mr. Clayton falling against the door and the impact from rolling caused the door latch to open. The jury found that the Explorer was not defective. Following trial, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (rule 59 motion) on the basis that there was an "[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court." See Utah R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1).2
¶ 18 In their rule 59 motion, Plaintiffs asserted that Ford's expert, Packer Engineering, tampered with the door latch prior to trial by adjusting its fork bolts in a way that would support Ford's theory of why the door latch opened. Plaintiffs claim that they did not identify the tampering until trial, when enlarged photographs revealed tampering. The trial court denied this motion and Plaintiffs now appeal.
¶ 19 Ford first argues that the issue was not preserved. It was, however, raised in Plaintiffs' amended motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.3 Because Plaintiffs' amended motion was timely filed and the trial court heard oral argument on the matter, the issue was preserved, even though the "irregularity of the proceedings" argument was not specifically raised until Plaintiffs' amended motion. See LeBaron & Assocs. v. Rebel Enters., Inc., 823 P.2d 479, 482-83 (Utah Ct.App.1991).
¶ 20 The trial court stated that it was "of the opinion there is ample evidence to support the jury's finding regarding the door latch." On appeal, Plaintiffs have explained in great detail their theory about the door latch. However, Plaintiffs have failed to "`marshal all the evidence in support of the [jury] finding and then demonstrate that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding even when viewing it in a light most favorable to the court below.'" Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 76, 100 P.3d 1177 (quoting Wilson Supply, Inc. v. Fradan Mfg. Corp., 2002 UT 94, ¶ 21, 54 P.3d 1177); see Utah R.App. P. 24(a)(9) (). We note that there was extensive testimony and evidence presented at trial concerning the design and operation of the door latch that Plaintiffs fail to detail on appeal. Furthermore, Ford provided a detailed refutation of Plaintiffs' tampering claim in its response to Plaintiffs' rule 59 motion. Plaintiffs' claim relies on photographs of the door latch....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bresee v. Barton
...hearing. "A [district] court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion," Clayton v. Ford Motor Co. , 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 5, 214 P.3d 865, and "[w]e will reverse a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial only if there is no reasona......
-
Lawrence v. Mountainstar Healthcare, N. Utah Healthcare Corp.
...the lack of foundation for Dr. Dall's report caused by the failure of either party to require his presence at trial. Cf. Clayton v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 24, 214 P.3d 865 (excluding a non-testifying expert's report for lack of foundation despite fact that another defense expert......
-
Peterson v. Hyundai Motor Co.
..."[a] trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." See Clayton v. Ford Motor Co. , 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 5, 214 P.3d 865. But there are two aspects to a court's decision-making process in ruling on a motion for new trial, and there ar......
-
Gilbert Dev. Corp.. v. Wardley Corp..
...the directed verdict was erroneous, the judgment against GDC on its fiduciary duty claim rendered any error harmless. Cf. Clayton v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 39, 214 P.3d 865 (holding that directed verdict on fraud claim, even if erroneous, was harmless where jury found that motor......
-
Frequent Evidentiary Battles
...was no statistical disparity to support an inference of discrimination against appellant based on his gender. Clayton v. Ford Motor Co. , 214 P.3d 865, 876 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). Because the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, statistical evidence of other rollover accidents wa......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...evidence, not simply attack its credibility or offer other contradictory evidence supporting its position); Clayton v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 UTApp 154, ¶20, 214 P.3d 865 (finding plaintiff failed to marshal evidence in support of jury finding because plaintiff failed to include extensive tes......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...impeachment evidence for lack of foundation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Clayton v. Ford motor Co., 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 6, 214 P.3d 865, cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009). (3) Whether the trial court properly excluded internal engineering documents and memoranda is reviewed ......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...629. (9) Whether the trial court properly ordered that a trial should be bifurcated. See Clayton v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 UT App 154, ¶ 9, 214 P.3d 865, cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837. (10) Whether the trial court properly dismissed a case for failure to prosecute. See Gillmor v. Blue Ledge Corp......