Summary
This Utah Court of Appeals opinion reviews a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in a wrongful death action arising from a pedestrian-vehicle collision at an intersection. Although a jury initially found the commercial truck driver not negligent, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that undisputed evidence and Utah statutory duties established that the driver breached his duty of care as a matter of law. The decision clarifies the standard for when a driver should have been aware of pedestrians and had sufficient time to avoid a collision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury found that Cope was not negligent.
- Whether the undisputed evidence established, as a matter of law, that Cope breached his duty of care by failing to maintain a proper lookout, operating at an unsafe speed, and turning without ensuring that the movement could be made safely.
- Whether the conditional grant of a new trial should be reviewed separately.
Holdings
- The district court properly granted the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed evidence compelled the conclusion that Cope was negligent to at least some degree.
- Cope breached his duty of care as a matter of law by approaching the intersection and crosswalk at an unsafe speed, failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to yield to Michael, and turning before the movement could be made safely.
Key quotations
“Thus, if the evidence showed that Cope was negligent to any degree—even if his negligence was slight—the jury should have returned a verdict against him and the trial should have proceeded to the second phase, where the apportionment of fault would occur.” (¶ 19)
“Before the duty of a driver to yield the right of way arises he must be in a situation whereby he is either aware of the presence of a pedestrian within the crosswalk or should have, in the exercise of reasonable care, become aware of the pedestrian’s presence in time to yield the right of way.” (¶ 22)
“Based on the above considerations, we conclude, as a matter of law, that Cope breached his duty of care by approaching the intersection and crosswalk at an unsafe speed given the conditions.” (¶ 33)
Factual background
Eleven-year-old Michael Bowers entered a marked crosswalk at a busy Utah intersection after the pedestrian signal displayed a walk symbol. At the same time, the traffic signal for Cope turned green, and Cope made a right turn in a large commercial truck without stopping, striking and killing Michael approximately fifteen feet into the crosswalk. The evidence showed that the boys had been waiting at the corner, that the intersection and pedestrian signal were visible, and that Cope did not see the boys or the walk signal before turning.
Procedural history
Michael Bowers was killed when Cope's commercial truck struck him in a marked crosswalk. Michael's parents and the parents of the other children present brought wrongful-death and related negligence claims. The first phase of the bifurcated trial addressed whether Cope's conduct was negligent; the jury found no negligence. The district court set aside the verdict through judgment as a matter of law and conditionally granted a new trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as a matter of law and did not separately address the conditional new-trial ruling.