 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulos v. Covenant Transport2/20/2004
by itself, Paulos submits, constitutes reversible error; additionally, the multiple errors, taken together, constitute cumulative error requiring reversal. See Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 928 (Utah 1990) (finding the cumulative effect of several errors undermined the court's confidence that a fair trial was had).
First, Paulos asserts that the trial court should have admitted the American Trucking Association's Safety Guidelines Handbook into evidence as an exhibit and allowed the jury to use it in its deliberations. "'The admissibility of an item of evidence is a legal question.'" Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 2000 UT 99, , 17 P.3d 1110 (citation omitted). "However, the trial court has a great deal of discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence, and its ruling will not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion." Id.
Second, Paulos maintains that the trial court erred by allowing Cooper Strength to provide an elapsed time estimate of the accident. "In reviewing questions of admissibility of evidence at trial, deference is given to the trial court's advantageous position." Whitehead, 801 P.2d at 923.
Next, Paulos contends that the trial court inappropriately instructed the jury. "A trial court's ruling concerning a jury instruction is reviewed for correctness." Butler v. Naylor, 1999 UT 85, , 987 P.2d 41. However, " new trial will not be granted unless any error of the trial court was prejudicial, meaning that it misadvised or misled the jury on the law." Id. Jury instructions are examined in their entirety, thus we "'will affirm 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, , 31 P.3d 557. Moreover, "to assert that the trial court erred in either giving or failing to give an instruction, a party must first submit correct instructions and then, should the court fail to give them, timely except." Newsom v. Gold Cross Serv., Inc., 779 P.2d 692, 694 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). Paulos also argues that the caption on the special verdict form was inaccurate. "'We have held repeatedly that on appeal, a party cannot take advantage of an error committed at trial when that party led the trial court into committing the error.'" Cheves v. Williams, 1999 UT 86, , 993 P.2d 191 (citation omitted).
Finally, Paulos reasons that the trial court prejudicially erred by submitting the issue of Paulos's contributory negligence to the jury because there was no evidence of contributory negligence. "All parties are entitled to have their theories of the case submitted to the jury in the court's instructions, provided there is competent evidence to support them." Newsom, 779 P.2d at 694.
ANALYSIS
I. The American Trucking Association Handbook
A substantial issue at trial was the standard of care required of Covenant's driver, Travis. Paulos's expert testified that Travis should have reduced his speed and moved to the right as far as possible to assist Mucha in completing the pass. In support of that position, Paulos offered a truck driver's handbook from the American Trucking Association (the ATA handbook). Both sides acknowledged that the ATA handbook set forth an accepted standard of care as to what a semi-truck driver should do when being overtaken. Paulos argued that the ATA handbook was not a learned treatise, but rather was admissible as a safety manual containing the standard of conduct for semi-truck drivers. Covenant objected to its admissibility on the basis of relevancy, and alternatively urged that the ATA handbook should be treated as a learned treatise pursuant to rule 803(18)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|