Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Utah » Court of Appeals » 1999 » Harness v. Smith
Harness v. Smith
State: Utah
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 981418-CA Filed August 26
Case Date: 08/26/1999
Plaintiff: Harness
Defendant: Smith�s Food & Drug Centers Case No. 981418-CA Filed August 26, 1999
Preview:Harness v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers. Filed August 26, 1999

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---David Harness, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc., Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 981418-CA FILED August 26, 1999

1999 UT App 250 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Anne Stirba Attorneys: Randall D. Lund and Clayne I. Corey, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark F. James and Paul C. Drecksel, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis. BILLINGS, Judge: David Harness sued Smith's after he was injured following a fall from a shelf in the backroom of a Smith's grocery store. A jury found Smith's negligent, and awarded Harness $12,000 in medical expenses; $200,000 in general damages for pain and suffering; and $680,000 in lost income, lost earning capacity, and loss of household services. Following entry of judgment, Smith's moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied Smith's motion. This appeal followed. Smith's argues that there are insufficient facts to support the jury's general damage and lost earning capacity damage awards. Because Smith's challenge to the denial of their motions amounts to an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, they "must marshal the evidence in support of the verdict" and then show that the evidence cannot support the verdict. See Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 959 P.2d 109, 111 (Utah 1998). In this case, Smith's has made no attempt to marshal the evidence in support of the jury's award of damages. In fact, all Smith's has done is argue selected facts favorable to its position. As our supreme court has noted, "[Utah's appellate courts] do not sit to retry the facts." Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 800 (Utah 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Smith's motions.

______________________________

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/harness.htm[5/10/2013 6:30:58 PM]

Harness v. Smith's Food and Drug Centers. Filed August 26, 1999

Judith M. Billings, Judge ----WE CONCUR:

______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/harness.htm[5/10/2013 6:30:58 PM]

Download harness.pdf

Utah Law

Utah State Laws
    > Utah Gun Laws
    > Utah Statutes
Utah Tax
    > Utah State Tax
Utah Labor Laws
Utah Agencies
    > Utah DMV

Comments

Tips