Opinion ID: 2625838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the prejudicial effects of the trial court's error

Text: ¶ 145 Because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury in the second stage of the bifurcated trial that State Farm had been found liable to Mrs. Campbell for bad faith, the judgment from the trial's second stage must be vacated and remanded as to Inez Campbell's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and as to the punitive damages award rendered jointly to Mr. and Mrs. Campbell. Those instructions tainted the jury's consideration of Mrs. Campbell's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, thus preventing any chance that State Farm would receive a fair trial on those issues or on the issue of punitive damages. Moreover, the erroneous instructions fundamentally altered the jury's consideration of punitive damages in contravention to our decision in Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991). Indeed, both independently and together, the trial court's severe missteps in this regard constituted plain error necessitating reversal on appealespecially given that such errors occurred, not because the trial court mistakenly overlooked a matter of procedure or law, but as a result of the court's own affirmative actions in respect to the verdict in the first stage of the case and the jury instructions and special verdict form in the second. [4]
¶ 146 All parties to litigationplaintiff and defendant alikeare entitled to a fair trial. In Utah, this right to a fair trial has long included the right to a presentation of the case to the jury under instructions that clearly, concisely and accurately state the issues and the law applicable thereto so that the jury will understand its duties. Hanks v. Christensen, 11 Utah 2d 8, 12, 354 P.2d 564, 566 (1960); see also, e.g., Rowley v. Graven Bros. & Co., 26 Utah 2d 448, 451, 491 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1971); Brunson v. Strong, 17 Utah 2d 364, 368, 412 P.2d 451, 454 (1966); Williams v. Lloyd, 16 Utah 2d 427, 429, 403 P.2d 166, 167 (1965); Wellman v. Noble, 12 Utah 2d 350, 352, 366 P.2d 701, 702 (1961); Utah State Nat'l Bank v. Livingston, 74 Utah 456, 458-59, 280 P. 327, 327-28 (1929). In this case, however, the instructions given by the court to the jury were anything but clear or accurate, and State Farm consequently never received a fair trial. ¶ 147 In fact, the instructions' multiple erroneous statements that State Farm had been found liable to Inez Campbell for bad faith possessed only the possibility to confuse the jury and the issues it was to decide. Perhaps most problematically, the court's erroneous statements took the jury's mind from the real issue of whether State Farm was liable under Mrs. Campbell's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress by emphasiz[ing] [a] situation[] ... not supported by the facts or lawthat State Farm was already liable to Inez Campbell for bad faith. Taylor v. Johnson, 15 Utah 2d 342, 349-50, 393 P.2d 382, 387-88 (1964). We have previously held that such an effect violates a party's right to a fair trial, and nothing militates to the contrary here. See id. Likewise, the court's instructions created the misperception that Mrs. Campbell's claims were inextricably bound up in, and caused by, State Farm's actions toward Mr. Campbell. In so doing, the court impermissibly confused the jury by repeatedly referring to the Campbells in the aggregate, rather than by separating the two plaintiffs and their respective claims as required by law. Cf. Nielsen v. Pioneer Valley Hosp., 830 P.2d 270, 274 (Utah 1992) (holding that plaintiff had been denied her right to a fair trial when the court gave instructions confusing the two legal theories on which she was pursuing her claim); King v. Barron, 770 P.2d 975, 977 (Utah 1988) (finding severance appropriate where merging trial for plaintiff's legally unrelated claims would invite error and confusion by forcing jury to consider different evidence and theories in relation to separate defendants). Had the court specifically instructed the jury that Inez Campbell's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress were entirely separate from those lodged by Curtis Campbellor had it severed Mrs. Campbell's suit from Mr. Campbell's upon making the correct and appropriate determination that she had no standing to sue for bad faiththen the prejudicial effects of this statement arguably would have been avoided. But the court did not take such an action, and as a consequence both the entire verdict as to Mrs. Campbell and the punitive award, which was rendered jointly as to Mr. and Mrs. Campbell, were irreparably tainted by the court's denying State Farm its right to a fair trial. ¶ 148 Indeed, the lower court's violation of State Farm's right to a fair trial in this case is especially flagrant in view of the great care with which trial courts are required to select juries. The process of voir dire exists so that courts can ensure a fair and impartial jury [is] chosen. 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury § 189, at 871 (1995). Likewise, partiality, prejudice, and bias all constitute reasons upon which a trial court may excuse a juror for cause, Utah R. Civ. P. 47(f)(6), and we have specifically held that trial judges should err on the side of caution in ruling on for-cause challenges, as courts' discretion in this area is limited due to the ease with which all issues of bias can be dispensed by the simple expedient of replacing a questionable juror with another whose neutrality is not open to question. State v. Saunders, 1999 UT 59, ¶ 51, 992 P.2d 951. As a result, we have further held that where a jury considers in its deliberations evidence not introduced at trial, a new trial is required to ensure fairness and impartiality of the ultimate result. See State ex rel. Road Comm'n v. White, 22 Utah 2d 102, 103, 449 P.2d 114, 115 (1969). [5] Similarly, courts uniformly require dismissal of potential jurors who have prior knowledge of facts material to the dispute, and require a new trial where such jurors were not dismissed. See, e.g., Lewis v. State ex rel. Baxley, 260 Ala. 368, 70 So.2d 790, 791-92 (1954) (affirming trial court's decision to dismiss six jurors from a disciplinary proceeding because their animals had been treated by the veterinarian under review); Barker v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 370, 337 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1985) (reversing a conviction for rape, sodomy, and malicious wounding because juror who knew of defendant's prior conviction on the same charges, which had been overturned and was being readjudicated, was not excused). And in cases where media coverage is so extensive that it precludes a party from receiv[ing] a fair and impartial trial, we have held that trial courts must take protective measures, such as allowing change of venue, to ensure a fair trial. See, e.g., State v. James, 767 P.2d 549, 554 (Utah 1989). In fact, even in the face of countervailing constitutional concerns, we have allowed trial courts to issue temporary restraining orders restricting during-trial publicity so that the parties hold a greater chance of receiving a fair trial. See KUTV, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 456, 461 (Utah 1984). It is for this same reason that trial judges examine potential jurors at length about any outside information they may have received concerning the case at issue and whether they have any preconceived notions about the parties or the subject matter in dispute. Upon finding that such partiality exists, a judge will properly excuse that potential juror from service, just as courts repeatedly and appropriately instruct the eventually impaneled jurors not to discuss the case with anyone or to consider any media coverage of the suit or other outside evidence. See Model Utah Jury Instructions, Civil 1.8 (Michie 1993). In this case, however, the trial court nullified any prior efforts it had made to impanel a fair and impartial jury by itself giving the jury erroneous information, namely, that State Farm had already been found liable to Mrs. Campbell for bad faith. Had a potential juror admitted to such an erroneous belief upon reporting for duty, he or she certainly would have been excused. But here, it was the trial court's own instruction that misled the jury and, thus, encroached on State Farm's right to a fair trial. ¶ 149 Accordingly, the majority opinion's bare assertion that Mrs. Campbell's fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims provide[ ] an independent basis for sustaining all of Mrs. Campbell's damages cannot support an affirmance of the lower court's judgment. Not only does Justice Durham fail to attempt to explain how those theories of liability account for the damages the jury actually awarded, but the judgments rendered to Mrs. Campbell on her claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress are void ab initio due to the court's breach of State Farm's right to a fair trial.
¶ 150 Apart from the problems created by the lower court's denying State Farm its right to a fair trial, the court's multiple erroneous instructions to the jury that liability had been found as to Inez Campbell for bad faith prejudiced State Farm further by skewing the fundamental considerations required for determining punitive damages. ¶ 151 The jury was asked in the second stage of the bifurcated trial to award damages to both Curtis Campbell and Inez Campbell, and in doing so awarded compensatory damages to Curtis Campbell in the amount of $1.4 million and to Inez Campbell in the amount of $1.2 million. The jury was also asked to award punitive damages, if any, which it did in the amount of $145 million but without designating which portion of the amount was awarded to Inez Campbell and which portion was awarded to Curtis Campbell. ¶ 152 In its determination of punitive damages, the jury had been specifically instructed by the trial court to consider, among other things, the effect of defendant's misconduct on the lives of the Campbells, the relationship between the parties, and the amount of compensatory damages awarded. This jury instruction was given in compliance with our decision in Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991), which held that a jury awarding punitive damages must be charged with considering seven factors in order to determine the appropriate amount of the award. These factors include (i) the relative wealth of the defendant; (ii) the nature of the alleged misconduct; (iii) the facts and circumstances surrounding such conduct; (iv) the effect thereof on the lives of the plaintiff and others; (v) the probability of future recurrence of the misconduct; (vi) the relationship of the parties; and (vii) the amount of actual damages awarded.  Crookston, 817 P.2d at 808 (emphasis added). However, because the jury was operating under the false assumption that State Farm was liable to Inez Campbell for bad faith, it could not possibly have given proper consideration to each of these factors, and the majority consequently sets dangerous precedent by reinstating the jury's original punitive award for $145 million rather than remanding to the trial court for further deliberations on punitive damages. ¶ 153 Indeed, the jury granted Mrs. Campbell $1.2 million in compensatory damages for her injury, and we can only assume that the jury followed the judge's instructions and based its punitive award, at least partially, on the effect of State Farm's alleged misconduct on Mrs. Campbell's life. See, e.g., Nielsen v. Pioneer Valley Hosp., 830 P.2d 270, 275 (Utah 1992) ([J]urors are sworn to follow the instructions as given by the court....). As instructed by the court, the jury understood a good portion of such misconduct to include State Farm's breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing, but as explained, State Farm did not owe Mrs. Campbell such a duty and no jury had ever found that State Farm had breached it to her. This is enough by itself to require a reassessment of the punitive award at the trial level, since the judgment rendered to punish State Farm is inexplicably tied to misconduct that State Farm did notand could notcommit. ¶ 154 Moreover, the punitive award does not reflect an appropriate consideration of Crookston 's sixth factor, the relationship of the parties. The analysis undertaken by any jury properly employing our seven factors for punitive damages will be fundamentally altered when informed that, as a matter of law, one of the plaintiffs in the case has no standing to sue for one of the claims lodged. Especially here, where Mrs. Campbell's claim for bad faith was her only assertion of a fiduciary relationship with State Farm, it is imperative that we remand the punitive damages award for further proceedings. To be sure, even if Inez Campbell's remaining claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress survived the problems created by the unfair trial given to State Farm in this case, which they do not, they neither create nor demonstrate any relevant legal relationship between Mrs. Campbell and State Farm. The precise effect such a revelation would have had on the jury falls only within the realm of pure speculation, but given our own mandate that the jury consider, not a fictional, but the actual relationship of the parties in determining punitive damages, this too requires that we remand to the trial court for further proceedings. ¶ 155 Finally, the punitive damages award must fail because it was awarded jointly to Mr. and Mrs. Campbell rather than separately to each plaintiff. Even if the trial court had properly severed Inez Campbell's claims from her husband's, which it did not, the punitive award would have to be remanded under Crookston due to its joint nature. Mrs. Campbell's claims were entirely independent from Mr. Campbell's, but because punitive damages were awarded jointly as to both these plaintiffs, we cannot now know what portion of the award the jury intended to be owed to Inez Campbell and what portion it intended to be owed to Curtis Campbell. Accordingly, because Mrs. Campbell's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress must be remanded while Mr. Campbell's need notand because, as explained, the jury was inappropriately instructed to commingle the two plaintiffs in its consideration of the fourth and sixth Crookston factorsthe punitive damages award must be vacated and remanded for further proceedings. [6]