 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harding v. Bell11/5/2002
jury's verdict asserts that there was no marshaling obligation as to the evidence because it was irrelevant, the party challenging the verdict must affirmatively demonstrate that the evidence was irrelevant. If the party challenging the verdict fails to make such a demonstration, we will presume that the evidence supported the verdict and conclude that it should have been marshaled.
Here, it is clear that Harding failed to demonstrate the irrelevancy of the evidence cited by Dr. Bell because she did not provide us with the testimony of the four expert witnesses. We therefore assume that the jury's conclusion that Harding was negligent was adequately supported by the omitted expert testimony. See, e.g., Utah Med. Prods. v. Searcy, 958 P.2d 228, 233 (Utah 1998) ("In light of [appellant's] failure to marshal the evidence, we must assume that all the trial court's findings are supported by the verdict.")
Even in the absence of such an assumption, however, Harding's insufficiency claim would lack merit because sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to support the jury's conclusion that she was negligent. Specifically, the evidence admitted at trial showed that Harding knew of both the "abnormal" results from the ETT and the scheduled appointment with the cardiologist. The trial record further demonstrates that although Harding subsequently experienced "chest pain," including an "episode of . . . severe . . . chest discomfort," she waited several days before seeking medical attention and engaged in the strenuous physical activity of cleaning horse stalls. By itself, this evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that Harding was negligent. Harding's claim that there was insufficient evidence to find her negligent is therefore without merit.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in refusing to excuse prospective jurors 7, 11, and 12 for cause because Harding received an impartial jury. We further conclude that Harding's insufficiency of evidence claim fails because she did not marshal all of the evidence arguably supporting the jury's conclusion and because, in any event, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's finding. We therefore affirm.
Chief Justice Durham, Justice Howe, Justice Russon, and Justice Wilkins concur in Associate Chief Justice Durrant's opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|