Utah Law Developments
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Pages | 25 |
November, 2021
Appellate Highlights
by Rodney R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Robert Cummings, Nathanael Mitchell, Adam Pace, and Andrew Roth
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The following summaries have been prepared by the authoring attorneys listed above, who are solely responsible for their content.
UTAH SUPREME COURT
Scoff v. Wingate Wilderness Therapy 2021 UT 28 (July 9, 2021)
In the context of an injury suffered during a wilderness therapy program, the supreme court held that an injury "relat[es] to or aris[es] out of health care under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, Utah Code §§ 78B-3-401 et seq. if it "originate [s] from or [is] connected to something a health care provider did or should have done in the course of providing health care to th[e] patient." The court concluded that the claims against the wilderness therapy program were governed by the Act because the program provided "health care" in the form of wilderness therapy and the injured patient's claims originated from his participation in that therapy.
Ramon v. Nebo Sch. Dist. 2021 UT 30 (July 15, 2021)
The district court dismissed a claim for negligent supervision as superfluous, where the defendant school district had admitted it was vicariously liable for the actions of the bus driver who was involved in an accident. The supreme court reversed, declining to adopt the majority rule followed in other jurisdictions, and holding that a claim for negligent supervision is not superfluous when vicarious liability is admitted. The court held that concerns about double recovery and prejudice to the defendants can be addressed through other means.
Wyatt v. State 2021 UT 32 (July 15, 2021)
Rule l7(k) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure does not automatically bar testimonial exhibits from going back with the jury, but instead allows the trial court to exercise its broad discretion on whether to allow the jury to have such exhibits during its deliberations.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion when permitting a recording of a police interview to go back with the jury, where the exhibit was directed at the defendant's credibility and used to illustrate his capacity for lying.
Gillman v. Gillman 2021 UT 33 (July 22, 2021)
On interlocutory appeal from the district court's order setting aside a default certificate under Utah R. Civ. 55(c), the supreme court rejected the argument that a showing of "good cause" under Rule 55(c) demands some reason for the default beyond the defaulting party's own inaction. Emphasizing instead that" [v]acatur of a default is an equitable remedy," the court held that a showing of "good cause" under "Rule 55(c) requires only that a movant make a showing that is sufficient to persuade the district court that the default should be set aside."
Fitzgerald v. Spearhead Investments 2021 UT 34 (July 22, 2021)
In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court held that equitable estoppel may be invoked as a stand-alone basis for tolling a statute of limitations. It explained this is a doctrine distinct from equitable tolling. " [E]quitable estoppel is invoked in cases where the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial