Gustavo Callaspo Brito v. Dustin James Ballhew

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to review a district court judgment entered after arbitration under Utah Code section 31A-22-321. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury about an incomplete verdict in a manner that was not neutral and appeared to encourage a particular allocation of fault. The court vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A party has a statutory right to appeal a final district-court judgment entered after a section 31A-22-321 arbitration proceeding and trial de novo because section 31A-22-321 does not restrict appeals from the resulting district-court judgment.
2. When a court orders a jury to redeliberate because of an inconsistent, informal, or insufficient verdict, it must explain the reason for redeliberation in a completely neutral and impartial manner. The district court abused its discretion by suggesting that the jury had switched the fault allocations and that this was the only explanation for the incomplete verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Utah Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review a district-court judgment entered after a trial de novo following arbitration under Utah Code section 31A-22-321.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury to redeliberate on an inconsistent verdict in a manner that was not neutral and impartial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded