Davidson v. Prince

Utah Court of Appeals · 1991 · Evidence

Evidencejury instructionsincome tax instructionharmless errorexpert testimonyultimate issuelegal conclusionUtah Rule of Evidence 704

Facts

Prince, an employee of Folkens Brothers Trucking, negligently overturned a truck carrying animals, and Davidson was later injured when an escaped steer attacked him. At trial, the parties disputed how close Davidson was to the steer before it charged, and defendants introduced a statement from Davidson's letter estimating the distance at ten feet. Davidson also sought to have an accident reconstruction expert testify that Prince was negligent, but the trial court excluded that conclusion. The court additionally instructed the jury that any verdict awarded to Davidson would be exempt from federal income taxation.

Issue

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on the tax consequences of a personal injury award, excluding expert testimony that defendant was negligent, and admitting plaintiff's statement from a letter allegedly made during settlement negotiations.

Rule

In Utah, it is improper to instruct a jury on the tax consequences of a personal injury or wrongful death award, though reversal depends on whether the instruction likely misled the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party. Under Rule 704, opinion testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue, but experts may not give legal conclusions or simply tell the jury what result to reach. Under Rule 408, statements are excluded only if made in compromise negotiations; statements in a letter that is not an offer to compromise and instead demands full payment are not protected as settlement negotiations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in Salt Lake City, the judge instructs the jury that any personal injury damages awarded to Elena Morris are not subject to federal income tax. The judge gives no accompanying caution that jurors should disregard other collateral matters, and defense counsel repeatedly argued in closing that jurors should keep the award modest because Elena would receive it tax-free.

If Elena appeals after receiving a low damages award, what is the strongest argument for reversal under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that instructing the jury on the tax consequences of a personal injury or wrongful death award is improper. But Utah does not treat every improper instruction as automatically reversible; reversal depends on whether the instruction tended to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party. Here, unlike the mitigating context in the case, the judge gave the tax instruction without broader collateral-matter cautions and counsel emphasized the tax-free nature of the award, making prejudice the strongest basis for reversal.